a3304 B.A ZS 


Trinity College Library 
Durham, N. 6. 


™ 


Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 


DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY 
JOHN BATES CLARK, DIRECTOR 


PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC STUDIES OF THE WAR 


EDITED BY 
DAVID KINLEY 


Professor of Political Economy, University of Illinois 
Member of Committee of Research of the Endowment 


No. 10 


WAR THRIFT 


BY 


THOMAS NIXON CARVER 


Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University 


™m, 
\ Z 
— 


S 2.6 63 6 


NEW YORK 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 


AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 West 32ND STREET 
LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, AND BOMBAY 


1919 


4 ; ait Po 
' ; > 
4 7 Min Vee Pr) 
/ - PP occa, © oe 
’ Gane 
ply ‘ 
- 
: ; bs vo VE Bey 
P) 
Se 
, fi , 
t 
i 
: 
! 
ai 
‘ 
ebiluGs 
ey breeticeey. FN 
Ss ets = 
<* ce he 
Ny ¢ G 4 


COPYRIGHT 19.9 


BY THE 


- 


yh r f Tere 
£0), Vi ‘ is 2 Jackson Prace, Wasuincron, D. C. 
t : 
4 | 2) \ 
nae vt i 
‘ i] 
reve s it! 
J 
it 
ett a eet Wil 
Wiis 
f 
t i 
s 
o ! 
' 
‘ i) 
4 
i f 


EDITOR’S PREFACE 


This study by Professor Carver on “ War Thrift” is published 
too late to be of use to the American public in war time. But the 
subject is one on which we, as a people, have many lessons to 
learn, even in time of peace. For that reason alone the publica- 
tion of the study will be helpful, especially in view of the excel- 
lent treatment of the subject by the author. Professor Carver's 
treatment is both theoretical and practical and should be useful 
in helping us to order our public and private affairs so as to secure 
greater economy. 

Davip KINLEY. 


University of Illinois. 


“a 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 
The Meaning and Function of Thrift 

II The Place of Luxury in National Economy Riess Te 

iG tre Relationoen Uhentto War Economy. 2: . . 25 
IV The Relation of War Thrift to Reconstruction after the 

URGE ee ee) cess ck ets ya) ec Med) OO 

Nim @ompiiinonnarttk wet. 2. se a ee + AL 

ete Opposition to War lhrit “i 4. 6. fs Oe ke. 2 


fee the Grounds of the Opposition . . -. ws 4 a, .s OL 


CHAPTER I 
The Meaning and Function of Thrift 


In order to get a clear idea of the relation of thrift to the 
strength of the nation in war time, it will be necessary to analyze 
the nature of thrift and its relation to national economy in gen- 
eral.“ To begin with, it should be perfectly clear that thrift does 
not mean the hoarding of money. To hoard money is one of 
the most thriftless things one can do with it. The miser of ro- 
mance who kept his money in a secret hoard where he might 
gloat over it and enjoy the sensations of feeling, hearing and 
seeing it was, in the strictest possible sense, a thriftless consumer 
of wealth. Instead of using money as a tool of production or 
instrument of business, he was using it as a means of direct 
physical enjoyment. To have used it for the adornment of his 
body would scarcely have been more frivolous, thriftless or selfish. , 

Thrift, no less than extravagance, consists in using money — 
that is, in spending it. The sole difference is in the purpose or 
purposes for which it is used or spent. To spend money for 
immediate and temporary gratification is extravagance. To 
spend it for things which add to one’s power, mental, physical, 
moral or economic, is thrift. To spend it for tools of produc- 
tion wherewith one may increase his productive power is thrift. 
For a farmer to spend money on a luxurious automobile, when 
he needs a tractor with which to cultivate his land, is extrava- 
gance. To spend the same amount of money for a tractor, when 
he needs one with which to cultivate his land more thoroughly 
and increase his productive power, is thrift. Money is spent as 
truly in one case as in the other. It stimulates business as ef- 
fectively in the one case as in the other. But when money is 
spent extravagantly, it adds nothing to the productive power, | 

3 


4 WAR THRIFT 


either of the individual or of the nation. To spend it thriftily 
is to add to the productive power of both the individual and the 
nation. 

It is sometimes argued, of course, that if everybody spent all 
his surplus income for tools of production and nobody spent 
anything for luxuries, there would soon be overproduction, that 
is, the community would soon have such a supply of tools of pro- 
duction as to enable it to produce more than its thrifty consum- 
ers were willing to buy. Whatever validity this argument might 
have in normal times, it would obviously not apply to war con- 
ditions when the danger is not of overproduction but of under- 
production; when the problem is not how to consume the things 
which are produced, but how to produce the things which are 
necessary to the salvation of the country, not how to give the 
people the largest number of pleasurable sensations, but how to 
develop the maximum national strength. In this war in par- 
ticular this has been an acute problem. Everywhere the cry has 
been to speed up production in order that our soldiers might have 
military supplies, and ships to transport them, and that our 
civilian population and that of our allies might have food and 
other necessaries of life. 

The fear of overproduction is groundless, even in normal times. 
The tendency in a thrifty community is for capital, that is, the 
tools of production, to increase and become so abundant as to 
reduce the rate of interest, giving the owners of capital a smaller 
share of the product and consequently giving the other partici- 
pants in production a larger share. In addition there is a larger 
production in a thrifty community because such a community is 
well supplied with all the tools and instruments of production. 
The danger that there would be an oversupply of capital, that 
is, of tools, is counteracted by the tendency of interest rates to 
fall, thus reducing somewhat the inducement to save. The eco- 
nomic forces work in precisely the same way to check the 
overaccumulation of capital as they do to check the over- 
production of wheat, potatoes, or anything else. When there is 
a tendency toward the overproduction of wheat, the price tends _ 


THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF THRIFT 5 


to fall and this acts as an automatic check on further production 
by removing one of the inducements to the production of wheat. 

The theory that too much thrift would result in overproduc- >> 
tion is precisely like the theory that too much industry would 
do the same thing. One might argue that if our moralists and 
preachers of righteousness continue to extol the virtue of in- 
dustry and encourage all the people to work rather than to waste 
their time in sloth and idleness, the people might make the mis- 
take of producing too much. Thrift and industry have very 
much the same effect in the long run on the total volume of 
production. Thrift is the means by which the community equips 
itself with durable goods and with the instruments of production. 
The community that spends all its income for immediate gratifi- 
cation can never add to its industrial equipment. The com- 
munity that spends a part of its income not for immediate gratifi- 
cation, but for the distant future, for things which add nothing 
to its immediate satisfaction but which increase its productive 
equipment, is a community which grows in productive power 
from year to year and from generation to generation. Indus- 
try without thrift is as ineffective as is thrift without industry. 
The two together form the twin pillars of all industrial pros- 
perity. “¢ 

What has been said regarding the direction in which money 
is spent leads naturally to a consideration of the function of 
the spending of money in giving direction to the national energy. 
The energy of a community or a nation is directed either by 
authority or by persuasion. Men either do what they are told 
or what they are persuaded to do. By persuasion, however, is 
meant not merely verbal argument and wheedling; it includes 
the lure of personal advantage, the desire of pleasing some one 
whose good-will is esteemed, and a multitude of other things — 
in short, it includes practically everything which induces a man 
to act or which supplies him motivation, except the fear which 
lies back of all authority. Not the least important among the 
various forms of persuasion is the offer of a reward, pecuniary 
or otherwise. To offer a price for a commodity or a service is 


6 WAR THRIFT 


to attempt to persuade some one to produce the commodity or 
to render the service. Among all free peoples this form of per- 
suasion has come to play a very large part in the direction of 
national energy. ‘The gradual substitution of this form of per- 
suasion for government authority is one of the most significant 
earmarks of progress. In a low state of civilization and in a 
militant society men do very largely what they are ordered to 
do by government authority. In a higher and freer state of 
civilization they do more and more what they are persuaded to 
do by the prices which are offered on the market. A high price 
for one thing and a low price for another means a large induce- 
ment for the production of one thing and a smaller inducement 
for the production of the other. A rising price for one thing 
and a falling price for another is the attempt of the purchasing 
public to induce more productive energy to begin producing one 
thing and less productive energy to remain in the production of 
the other. 

Suppose, for example, it were a foregone conclusion that many 
more shoes were needed than were in process of production. 
There would be two ways of increasing the production of shoes. 
In the one case the government might by its own authority order 
an increase of production and detail a certain number of men 
from other industries or command them to enter the shoe-making 
industry. In the other case they who want more shoes than they 
have, begin to bid for them and offer higher prices in order to 
get them. These higher prices have the same effect in redistribut- 
ing the labor power of the country as the government order would 
have in the other case. In order to obtain these higher prices, 
existing factories would speed up, would run overtime, would 
employ more men, or else new factories would be built to meet 
the increasing demand. 

In case the desires of the public should undergo a considerable 
change, and the people should stop caring for one class of com- 
modities and begin caring intensely for an entirely different class, 
the same alternative methods would present themselves. It 
would be necessary, of course, in order that production might 


THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF THRIFT 7 


adjust itself to the demands of the consumers that considerable 
productive power should be transferred either directly or indi- 
rectly from the industry which was producing the article for 
which there is a shrinking demand to the industry which was 
producing the article for which there is an expanding demand. 
This transfer of productive power could be effected by govern- 
ment authority. The government could merely say to a certain 
number of men — leave this industry and go and work in the 
other — precisely as soldiers are ordered to transfer their efforts 
from one part of the field to another. In a low state of civiliza- 
tion this method is used in redistributing the forces of the indus- 
trial army, but in all higher civilization the method is that of 
persuasion. The article for which the people no longer care 
will not be bought in large quantities and the people will not be 
willing to pay a high price for it. That in itself will partially 
remove the inducement to production. <A certain amount of pro- 
ductive power will therefore be released from this industry. On 
the other hand the article for which there is an increasing demand 
can not at once be supplied in sufficient quantities to meet that 
demand. Some consumers will not be able to get what they 
want, and they will begin bidding against one another for the 
limited supply, thus forcing the price up. This advance in price 
is the persuasion which will lead investors, manufacturers and 
laborers to go into the industry which produces the article in 
question. Thus in the course of time, the transfer of productive 
power from the contracting to the expanding industry is made 
as effectively as though it had been made by a government order. 
It may be made a little less promptly, but much less violently, 
with less disturbance and with greater economy. On the battle 
field, promptness and secrecy are, of course, much more impor- 
tant than economy. In the industrial field, promptness and se- 
crecy are of less importance and economy of greater importance. 
That is why the tendency in all advanced industrial communities 
is toward the method of price persuasion and away from the 
method of government compulsion. 

Before we are in a position to understand the fundamentals 


8 WAR THRIFT 


of the thrift question, it can not be too much emphasized that 
in a free industrial society the way in which the people spend 
their money determines the direction in which the productive 
energy of the community is utilized. If, for example, no one 
is willing to purchase tools, or instruments of production, but 
every one demands articles of immediate enjoyment, tools will, 
of course, have no buyers and the tool-making industries will 
have no inducement to expand or even to continue. All the 
productive energy will be absorbed by the luxury-producing in- 
dustries and even they will be poorly equipped, because no one 
will be willing to invest in equipment. Where one group of 
people is demanding luxuries for immediate consumption and 
another group is willing to invest in the tools of production, 
the latter group may then equip the luxury-producing industries 
with tools in order to produce for the supply of the former 
group. If all were willing to spend money on tools and no one 
were willing to spend very much on extravagant frills, there 
would be an abundance of tools for the production of all the 
things which would supply the moderate needs of the community. 
With these moderate needs supplied by the abundant productive 
power of the community, the people could either work short 
hours or in a leisurely manner, or they could use their abun- 
dant energy in producing things of durable or permanent value, 
such as school buildings of architectural beauty, roads, irriga- 
tion projects, the drainage of swamps and various other enter- 
prises which would provide for posterity, enlarge the possi- 
bility of life in the national territory, and greatly expand the 
national power and greatness. 

_ If the people of Athens had chosen not to adorn the Acropolis 
with architectural monuments, they might for a long time have 
consumed somewhat more luxurious food, worn somewhat more 
costly apparel and amused themselves in somewhat more ex- 
pensive ways. That is, they could have devoted the national 
energy to the production of more luxurious food, clothing, and 
so forth. Instead of that, they chose to consume slightly less 
luxurious food and slightly less costly clothing than they might 


THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF THRIFT 9 


have had, in order to erect those buildings, which, if the Athenians 
had done nothing else, would have helped to justify their exist- 
ence. It was the direction in which they decided to spend their 
money which decided whether the national energy should be 


used in the production of ephemeral utilities or durable sources of - 


satisfaction. 

The people of those medieval cities who erected cathedrals 
as monuments of their religious faith could, if they had chosen 
otherwise, have fed, clothed and amused themselves in more 
expensive ways, that is, the man-power which was used in the 
erection of churches could have been used in the production of 
objects of temporary gratification. They chose to spend their 
money for durable rather than for perishable goods and that is 
why the world was enriched by the religious architecture of the 
medieval period. Any modern city that chooses to get along 
with ineffective school buildings can for a few years keep its 
tax rate down slightly and the people may therefore have a little 
more money to spend on trivialities. If, on the other hand, they 
choose to build school buildings whose architecture will enrich 
the world as the church architecture of the medieval period did, 
they will have to cut down the amount of money which they 
would spend for other things and release a certain amount of 
productive energy from the production of frills and luxuries and 
make it available for the production of these objects of durable 
satisfaction. 

Whether one thinks that it was the thrift or the extravagance 
of the Athenians which built the Parthenon, will depend upon 
whether one thinks that the building of the Parthenon was an 
important thing to do or not. If he regards it as a triviality, 
then he will call the building of it an extravagance and he 
will doubtless think how much better it would have been if the 
Athenians had used the same amount of money in purchasing and 
the same amount of energy in producing things which would have 
fed their bellies or adorned their bodies. If, on the other hand, 
he thinks that it was a very important thing to do— more im- 
portant than anything else that they could probably have done 


Io WAR THRIFT 


with their money and their productive energy, he would say 
that it was thrift which built the Parthenon. The same ques- 
tion might be discussed with respect to the religious architecture 
of the Middle Ages and the same question, of course, arises in 
every city of the present day, when the problem of school 
architecture is discussed. To one who regards school archi- 
tecture as a triviality, the building of magnificent and well- 
2quipped school buildings seems an extravagance. He would 
doubtless regret that so much productive power should be used 
in the building of such things when it might be used for the pro- 
duction of things which would gratify the appetite or some other 
temporary desire. But to one who regards school architecture 
as something very important, the erection of such school build- 
ings as some people would like to see would be called an act of 
thrift. 

Much the same question, of course, could be discussed, if such 
‘discussion were tolerated, with respect to the war. There may 
be individuals here and there who regard the winning of this 
war as an extravagance, who regret the flesh pots of Egypt and 
yearn for the onions and garlic of the days preceding the war. 
But to one who regards the winning of the war as the supreme 
object of this generation, of such importance as not to be men- 
tioned in the same breath with any of the luxuries with which 
our amazing prosperity has provided us during the last genera- 
tion, spending money on the war instead of on those former 
luxuries will seem a very thrifty thing to do. at 

The general argument for thrift may be summarized as fol- 
lows: Even in time of peace it is a good thing for a man to save 
and invest a part of his income. It is better for himself and for 
everybody else that he should do so than that he should spend 
his whole income on things for immediate consumption. In 
time of war especially it is far better to save and invest than to 
consume things which one does not really need. 

In time of peace he who saves money, and invests it wisely, 
does himself good in two ways. He gains directly by having an 


THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF THRIFT II 


income in addition to his wages or his salary. He gains indi- 
rectly by making better conditions for everybody, including him- 
self. 

It is easy to see that he gains directly. To have a hundred 
dollars invested, even at four per cent., is better than not to have 
it. It gives him four dollars a year over and above his other 
income; and four dollars a year, small as it is, is not to be de- 
spised. 

It is not so easy to see, but it is none the less true, that saving 
and wise investing make conditions better for everybody includ- 
ing oneself. To save and invest, as stated above, is not to hoard. 
It is to buy things which are needed for production or defense 
instead of things which are good only for consumption or pleas- 
ure. To buy things, such as tools, machines, buildings, etc., 
which aid in production is to encourage the making of such 
things. When many people are investing in tools, many tools 
will be produced and industry will then be well equipped with 
aids to production. In short, there will be many factories well 
equipped with buildings, machines, and materials. That is a 
condition in which there is much employment. 

One may buy either directly or indirectly those things which 
aid in production. When a farmer buys a traction engine rather 
than a luxurious automobile, he is buying directly a thing which 
aids in production rather than an article of consumption. If he 
has bought wisely, the traction engine will aid him to grow a 
larger crop, which is a good thing for him. It will also increase 
the food supply, which is a good thing for everybody. The more 
farmers there are who save money and invest it in instruments 
which aid in production, the better production we shall have and 
the better the world will be fed.. When a factory owner builds 
an addition to his factory rather than a new dwelling house, he 
is buying directly various things which aid in production. If he 
builds wisely he will add to his income, which is a good thing 
for him. It will also add to the productive power of thé com- 
munity, which is a good thing for everybody. It is a good thing 


\ 


12 WAR THRIFT 


especially for laborers because it will require more laborers to 
run the enlarged factory than were required before it was en- 
larged. In short, it increases the demand for labor. 

The more people there are who save their money and buy 
tractors, machines, factory buildings and all other aids to pro- 
duction, the better the community will be supplied with all such 
things. The better the community is supplied with.all such 
things, the greater its productive power and the greater the op- 
portunities for productive employment. That is the reason why 
laborers always emigrate from a country where there is little 
saving and investing to a country where there is much saving 
and investing. 

But one may buy indirectly things which aid in production. 
When one deposits money in a savings bank, the bank will invest 
it. It may lend it to some farmer who wants to buy a tractor, 
a team, a cow or some other aid to production. It may buy 
part ownership in some factory, or in some other way encour- 
age the buying of aids to production. The saver may himself 
buy the share in some corporation. In that case he becomes 
a part owner in the factory or whatever it is that the corpora- 
tion owns. In all these ways, and in many others, one may buy 
indirectly all sorts of things which aid in production. 

Indirect buying of such things has the same effect as direct 
buying. It encourages others to make the tools, machines, build- 
ings and other things which aid in production. Nobody would 
make such things unless somebody would buy and pay for them. 
The only people who buy and pay for them are they who save 
and invest, who buy fewer articles of consumption than they 
might buy, and spend the money thus saved for things which aid 
in production. That is what it means to save and invest. 

These reasons in favor of saving and investing are many 
times stronger in time of war than in time of peace. In time 
of war it is of the utmost importance that the materials and 
the man-power of the country be conserved. They need to be 
used for national defense rather than to produce things for 
private enjoyment beyond what is necessary for health, strength 


THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF THRIFT 13 


and efficiency. The way to conserve these things and turn them 
to national rather than private uses is for all of us to buy fewer 
things which we do not need. We shall then require fewer ma- 
terials and less man-power to minister to our own gratification. 

If we buy liberty bonds we shall have less money to spend 
on ourselves. But this does not mean that the money will not 
be spent. The government will have-it to spend for the things 
which it needs for our defense. When the government spends 
it, it will stimulate the kinds of business which help win the 
war, whereas if we spend it on ourselves, it will stimulate the 
businesses which use for other purposes the materials and man- 
power which the ‘government needs for its supreme purpose. 
If the government spends the money, it will give as much em- 
ployment to labor as it would if we spent it on ourselves; the 
difference will be that the government will employ labor in ways 
that help win the war, whereas we would employ labor in ways 
that would not. 

To invest, as stated above, is to spend money for things of 
vital and permanent value rather than for things of trifling or 
temporary value. Some of the most needed investments at the 
present time are war savings stamps and liberty bonds. To own 
a liberty bond is certainly better than not to own it. At the 
present time, it is not only better for you, it is also very much 
better for the whole country and the world that you should buy 
liberty bonds than that you should buy articles of consumption 
which you do not really need, even though you would like very 
much to have them. » If you buy liberty bonds, the government 
will spend that money to hire men to build ships, make guns and 
ammunition and do whatever else is necessary for the defense 
of the liberty of the world. It is better for you and for every- 
body that you should spend your money indirectly. for these 
things, than that you should spend it directly for some article of 
consumption which does you no real or lasting good. 


CHAPTER II 
The Place of Luxury in National Economy 


Scientific as well as popular discussion is somewhat divided on 
the question of luxury and its effect upon national prosperity. 
Not much headway can be made in clearing up this discussion 
without some attention to definitions. Adam Smith defined lux- 
uries as articles which were wholly matters of individual in- 
dulgence and not demanded either by the physical health and 
strength of the people or by the rules of society. Others have 
made a separate class of goods called decencies, which includes 
everything prescribed by the rules of society, but not necessary 
either to the physical health, strength or comfort of the people. 
The dividing line between decencies or luxuries is, however, a 
very obscure and wavering one. What are meant, for example, 
by the rules of society? Do they include merely those forms 
of consumption which are demanded with practical universality 
by all members of a community, or do they include whatever 
one’s particular class or set regards as proper for its members? 
If a person belongs, for example, to a small group of spend- 
thrifts, he may claim that the rules of his social group compel 
him to spend money lavishly on things which other groups 
would regard as pure luxuries. Therefore, he might justify 
himself on the ground that these articles of consumption are to 
him only decencies. If we go so far as this in our definition of 
decencies, we shall find that there are practically no luxuries in 
the world. It would seem better, therefore, to confine our defini- 
tion of decencies to those things which are prescribed by the 
almost universal consensus of opinion throughout the nation at 
the time. Thus, in America, for example, it would be almost 
universally thought indecent for a man to appear in public places, 

14 


THE PLACE OF LUXURY IN NATIONAL ECONOMY 15 


even in warm weather, without shoes. Before the advent of the 
waist-shirt it was generally regarded as improper or indecent 
for a man to appear in any public place indoors even in the hot- 
test weather without a coat. With the spread of intelligence, 
however, certain large sections of the country have nullified this 
absurd rule. That every woman shall possess certain articles of 
finery is a rule even among the poorest of our people. To in- 
sist on the elimination of all such articles of consumption on 
the ground that they are luxuries would produce a great shock 
to our social feelings and would be justified only on the grounds 
of the most dire necessity. If we were threatened with an absolute 
famine, and our national existence depended upon reducing our 
consumption to the very lowest possible minimum, even these 
articles of consumption would have to be eliminated, and we 
should have to consume only those things which were absolutely 
necessary for health, strength and efficiency. 

Luxuries should include, therefore, everything not required 
for health, strength and efficiency of the people and not de- 
manded as decencies by the general consensus of opinion of the 
whole nation. Even though one’s own social set may live on 
a certain scale of “conspicuous waste,’ even though one has 
been accustomed to associating with people who form their opin- 
ions as to an individual’s respectability on the basis of the dis- 
play which he can make of his wealth, or the lavishness with 
which he can advertise his solvency, one could not properly claim 
that either necessity or decency required him to spend so much, 
or to consume so many things. For every woman who is phys- 
ically and mentally sound, even one servant is a luxury unless 
she is actually engaged in other productive work which would 
prevent her from doing her own housework. Membership in 
any kind of a club is a luxury to a man, even though all his par- 
ticular “riends and associates belong to it. But the ordinary 
conventional clothing and furniture of the ordinary household 
is a decency, even though in cases of dire necessity they might 
be dispensed with. Only a fraction of the human race, 7.e., the 
Christian nations, ever use chairs, for example. They could, 


16 WAR THRIFT 


therefore, scarcely be called necessaries. But within the pale of 
Christendom they are so universally used as to have become 
socially necessary, and it would not be decent to get along with- 
out them. Some kind of woolen clothing, consisting of coat, 
vest and trousers, is likewise a decency for men, as are the stand- 
ard forms of food such as bread, meat and vegetables, even 
though some of these could be dispensed with in time of dire 
scarcity. 

That the demand for luxuries has a stimulating effect upon in- 
dustry has generally been recognized by economists as well as 
by the general public. J. R. MacCulloh + says that any gratifica- 
tion, however trivial, is necessary if an individual is stimulated 
to work in order to attain it. John Stuart Mill? points out that 
the work of civilizing the savage consists in part in inspiring him 
with new wants and desires as a motive to steady and regular bod- 
ily and mental exercise. ‘It is a well known fact that in certain 
low states of civilization the laborer, or peon, is content with so 
few articles of consumption that he will not work efficiently or 
steadily.2 If, by working for a part of a week, he can earn 
enough to support him for the entire week in the style to which 
he is accustomed, he will only work for part of the week. One 
way of inducing him to work for the entire week is to increase 
his wants or those of his family so that it will require a full 
week’s wages to supply them. Even in our so-called higher 
stages of civilization, there is a tendency to reduce the number 
of hours per day for precisely the same reason. When men 
find that they can earn enough in four or five hours to support 
them for twenty-four hours, they insist on working only four 
or five hours a day. Others find that they can earn enough in 
twenty years to support them for the rest of their lives. They 
therefore retire from business long before their physical and 
mental capacity has begun to decline. The difference between 

1 Principles of Political Economy, Edinborough, 1895. 

2Tbid., Book I, Chapter 7. 


3 See T. N. Carver, Principles of Political Economy, Ginn and Company, 
1919. Chapter 40. 


THE PLACE OF LUXURY IN NATIONAL ECONOMY 17 


such men and the peon who works only a part of each week is 
much less than is commonly supposed. 
“Economically speaking, leisure itself with the opportunity for 
sloth, amusement or dissipation is a luxury to some people. The 
peon chooses between this form of luxury and some other form 
which he could afford with his wages if he were to deprive him- 
self of leisure and work a full week. If he prefers leisure to 
those other luxuries which could be purchased with money, he 
will, of course, choose leisure. The same question presents 
itself and the same choice is made by those who decide to cut 
~ down the hours of the working day or the years of the working 
life. 

As to which form of luxury it is better to choose from the 
standpoint ye economy, there may be some difference 
of opinion,”“but the economic arguments are overwhelmingly in 
favor of material luxuries rather than of leisure, though in this, 
as in all other economic choices, it is a question of degree. The 
well known principle of marginal utility applies here as to other 
economic choices. Material luxuries which are purchasable with 
money, as they increase in quantity tend to decline in utility or 
want-satisfying power, simply because the wants tend to become 
satiated. Let us assume that the longer one works the more 
goods he will be able to purchase with his earnings. Sooner 
or later these purchasable goods decline in their power to satisfy 
his wants, simply because his wants tend to be oversupplied. 
The desire for more goods ceases to be a strongly motivating 
desire. Sooner or later this desire becomes less intense than the 
desire for rest or leisure. The same principle applies to the de- 
sire for leisure. After one has rested for a few hours, the 
desire for another hour’s rest becomes less intense than the desire 
for the first hour’s rest was before it was enjoyed. 

The individual in whom the desire for rest is very strong and 
the desire for purchasable commodities very weak will naturally, 
if he has any surplus time, devote a large proportion of his time 
to rest rather than to earning the means of purchasing goods. 
On the other hand, an energetic individual with a highly stren- 


\ 


AY 


18 "WAR THRIFT 


uous nature, who delights in action and cares little for rest or 
leisure, and who, at the same time, has an intense desire for 
purchasable luxuries will, with equal certainty, choose to use 
his surplus time in earning the means of purchasing material 
luxuries rather than in rest or leisure. There is not much doubt 
that a nation made up of men of strenuous natures who delight 
in action and care intensely for the products of industry will 
be a stronger nation than one made up of people whose chief 
desire is for rest and leisure. The moral leader or preacher of 
righteousness whose business is to help create the ideals of the 
people and to direct their desires, that is, to make them desire 
the right things, will do well, therefore, if he labors to create 
strenuous natures with a strong desire for activity rather than 
slothful natures with a strong desire for rest and leisure, even 
though as a by-product of his moral teaching he should stimulate 
luxurious consumption. 

However, the choice is not altogether between leisure on the 
one hand and material luxuries on the other. It is quite possible 
to develop strenuosity, the delight in action, and those motives 
which characterize an energetic nation by other means than the 
desire for luxury. Even though, as John Stuart Mill pointed 
out, one of the first steps in developing the willingness on the 
part of a vacillating savage to engage in steady work may be 
the increase of his wants, it does not follow that this is the only 
thing which will appeal to the civilized man. 

Before going far with our discussion of methods of creating 
strenuosity, we should consider further whether it is worth 
while or not. We should be particularly on our guard against 
an uncritical commendation of strenuous production for its own 
sake. It is true, of course, that a community which chooses 
to take its luxury in the form of consumable material goods 
rather than in such immaterial forms as leisure and rest will 
have more goods. Business will be more active, the statistics 
of wealth will be expanded, the census taker and tax assessor 
will find more tangible evidence of wealth in such a community 
than they would find in a community which preferred to take its 


THE PLACE OF LUXURY IN NATIONAL ECONOMY _ 19 


luxury in the form of leisure. We who are members of a stren- 
uous race to whom leisure does not seem so very desirable, of 
a race, also, which might be classed as greedy or gluttonous, 
having more desires for material wealth than for leisure, think 
we have made the wiser choice. We are therefore inclined to 
point the finger of scorn at the slothful races who have chosen 
otherwise. But there is such a thing as the pot calling the 
kettle black. 

There is, however, a more critical and intelligent argument 
in favor of the choice which we have made. This argument 
goes back as far at least as David Hume. It is to the effect that 
luxuries serve as a storehouse of labor which, in the exigencies 
of war and other calamities, may be turned to public service. In 
other words, a community which in time of peace has expended 
a large proportion of its energy in the production of luxuries, 
may in time of great national crisis, stop producing luxuries and 
turn its surplus energy into the work of meeting the crisis. In 
time of war, for instance, the consumption of luxuries may be cut 
down and the productive energy which had been used in the 
production of luxuries may be used in the prosecution of the 
war, in the manufacture of munitions and war equipment and 
so forth. 

// The nation which took its luxury in the form of leisure might 
also be said to have a surplus of national energy to spare which 
could be used in the prosecution of war. That is to say, instead 
of spending a part of its time in idleness, it could use all that 
surplus time in the prosecution of the war. But, on the other 
hand, such a nation would probably not have the experience in 
technical production, nor would it have the technical equipment 
which could be turned quickly from the production of articles 
of consumption to the production of materials of war. As be- 
tween two nations with equal population and equal natural re- 
sources, the advantage would probably be on the side of the 
one that had used its surplus energy and resources in the pro- 
duction of multitudes of goods. The nation that had produced 
only the necessaries of life and spent its surplus time in leisure 


FAO WAR THRIFT 


would find it as hard to give up its leisure as the strenuous nation 
would find it to give up its material luxuries. In addition to 
that, the leisurely nation would have to learn many of the 
arts of technical production and equip itself with tools and 
machinery. Not having a wide and varied experience in all 
sorts of mechanical industries, not having the habit of strenuous, 
mechanical effort, such a nation would probably find more diffi- 
culty in turning its surplus energy effectively into the war in- 
dustries than the strenuous nation, which would only need to 
give up the consumption of luxuries in order to turn its me- 
chanical equipment, as well as its wide and varied mechanical 
skill, into the production of the necessaries of war. 

While the arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of strenu- 
osity rather than leisure, there is still a choice to be made as to 
the means of stimulating strenuosity. A strenuous nation whose 
chief delight is in activity may choose to spend its time and 
energy lavishly in the production of capital rather than of con-' 
sumers goods, of durable sources of satisfaction, rather than 
of those of ephemeral sources of satisfaction, which are com- 
monly known as luxuries. A nation that chooses to work 
strenuously at the making of tools and engines of production, the 
building of roads, schoolhouses, public buildings of all sorts, at 
the draining of swamps, the irrigation of dry land, the clearing 
of forests and stony lands, can use up all its surplus energy in 
these ways as easily as it could if it chose to produce articles for 
immediate and temporary gratification. In a time of great na- 
tional crisis, it would have a vast amount of equipment ready 
to be used in the crisis, in addition to which it could reduce 
the rate of permanent construction; that is, it could stop making 
tools and engines of production, stop building roads and school- 
houses, it could stop draining swamps, clearing broken land and 
irrigating dry land, and turn all that energy into the army and 
navy and the war industries. The nation which had been using 
its energy for a century or so in these constructive ways would 
be in a better position to wage a successful war, or meet any 
other national calamity, than the nation which had been pro- 


THE PLACE OF LUXURY IN NATIONAL ECONOMY 21 


ducing luxuries on a vast scale for immediate consumption. In 
the first place, it would have as much surplus energy to turn 
into the war industries, besides having a vastly better equip- 
ment in the way of durable construction to begin with. 

Even in cases of local disaster, such as fire or earthquake, 
as well as in time of war, retovery usually comes with amazing 
rapidity to a people with an abundance of surplus energy. In 
spite of the fact that vast quantities of wealth are destroyed, a 
city which has suffered disaster soon recovers and becomes to 
all outward appearance as prosperous as ever. Luxury is sup- 
posed by some to have an important bearing on this question. 
The real factor, however, is the surplus of energy which the 
community has which may be turned to the task of rebuilding 
what was destroyed. Whether that surplus existed in the form 
of leisure, in the production of luxuries, or in the construction 
of durable equipment, it is, after the disaster, available for re- 
building, which is only another form of durable construction. 

We grant without further argument the validity of the con- 
tention that in normal times luxury is a storehouse of labor, 
that through the production of luxuries labor “keeps its hand 
in,’ as it were, that men have wide and varied experience in all 
kinds of mechanical production, and that all this energy and 
skill may be redirected toward the war and the war industries. 
This would furnish, however, the poorest kind of an argument 
in favor of a continuation of luxurious consumption in time 
of war. In fact, the validity of this argument depends abso- 
lutely upon the willingness of the people to cut off luxury in 
war time. - If they are unwilling to do this, if they insist on 
living as luxuriously in time of war as in time of peace, the 
validity of this argument for luxury is absolutely destroyed. 
If they demand as many luxuries in war time as in peace time, 
there is no energy that can be released for war purposes. If 
luxury is a storehouse of labor it would be, in this case, a store- 
house which could never be drawn upon in time of need; it 
would be about as useful as money locked up where it could 
not be got at. 


22 WAR THRIFT 


The essential thing is that there shall be a fund of surplus 
energy which may be devoted to extraordinary purposes in ex- 
traordinary times. Whether this surplus energy exists in the 
form of leisure, of man-power devoted to the production of 
luxuries, or of man-power devoted to the production of tools, 
engines, roads, bridges, architectural monuments and other 
sources of durable satisfaction is a minor question, though one 
of considerable importance in itself. 

A great preventive of the accumulation of a fund of sur- 
plus human energy is the tendency toward the multiplication 
of numbers. If there are too many people trying to wrest a 
living from a limited geographical area, it may require all their 
energy to procure the means of subsistence, so that they will 
have none left for leisure, for luxury or for permanent con- 
struction. It is a well known fact, for example, that vegetation 
tends to become so dense as to use up in mere survival and 
multiplication all the fertility, moisture, light and other essen- 
tials of growth which the limited space affords.1 If, for any 
accidental reasons, the vegetation in a certain spot should not 
be so dense as to use up all its resources, its power of multipli- 
cation is so great and the tendency toward multiplication so 
powerful as to speedily increase the density to the point of equi- 
librium. 

By the point of equilikrium is meant a condition in which all 
the energy of the plant is required for the mere process of keep- 
ing alive and reproducing itself. Vegetables seem to have no 
means of arresting this process or of accumulating a fund or 
store of surplus energy. Nature seems everywhere to preserve 
a sort of balance, or equilibrium, between the demands of living 
things and the supply of the essentials of life. This applies not 
simply to vegetable life, but to animal life and to human life, at 
least in its lower forms. In the absence of disturbing causes, 
human population tends to become so dense as to require all the 
energy of the people to procure subsistence enough to sustain that 
energy. A community which possesses more energy than is 


1See T. N. Carver, Essays in Social Justice, pp. 132-133. 


THE PLACE OF LUXURY IN NATIONAL ECONOMY 23 


required to keep itself alive and to replace the energy used up in 
the work of gaining subsistence, may be said to possess surplus 
energy. Nature, however, tends to dissipate any such surplus 
energy in various ways: First, through the multiplication of 
numbers, and second through gluttonous consumption. Ina few 
cases, however, and in the history of this planet they are very 
few, special branches of the human species have succeeded in 
achieving something more than this. That achievement may be 
called a storing of surplus human energy. Such a result is pos- 
sible only where nature’s process of dissipation has been arrested 
and human energy has been used for other purposes than its 
own physical maintenance. 

The effective agency by means of which this store of surplus 
energy is effected is the expansion of human desires beyond the 
two elemental desires of hunger and sex. The strengthening of 
the desire for leisure until it will take precedence over the de- 
sire for sexual gratification may lead a community to keep its 
population within such limits as will enable its people to procure 
sustenance with a part of its energy. In that case it will have a 
surplus of energy to be devoted to leisure. In other cases, the 
desire for material luxuries may take precedence over sexual 
desire and lead the people, through what is known as a high 
standard of living, to defer marriage and control the average 
size of the family and thus keep the population within such 
limits as will enable them to procure physical sustenance with 
a part of their energy. In this case, the surplus energy can be 
devoted to the production of material luxuries. 

But thrift is quite as effective an agency of control as the 
desire for either leisure or material luxuries. The effective de- 
sire for accumulation may become strong enough to hold the 
dissipating tendencies in check, to reduce the size of families and 
raise the age of marriage. A community made up of people 
who insist on saving something each generation and adding to 
the accumulations of capital will have as large a surplus of 
energy as a community that insists upon leisure or material 
luxuries. In short, the desire for life insurance, for a savings 


24 WAR THRIFT 


deposit, for an investment in productive business, for increase 
in the stock of tools and equipment, enters into the standard 
of living of a progressive people as truly as does the desire for 
sirloin steak, silk dresses, or automobiles. It has precisely the 
same effect on the age of marriage, on the size of families, in 
arresting the dissipating tendencies in the world of physical 
nature as do the less constructive desires for leisure and luxury. | 
In addition, it has the effect of adding to the industrial equip- 
ment of the community generation after generation. It is no 
accident, therefore, that the-nations which take their surplus in 
the form of frequent holidays, of graceful consumption, and 
elegant leisure, have long since fallen behind in the progress of 
civilization, while those nations which have preserved a kind of 
emotional interest in the austere and productive life, whose ideals 
of life have centered in the future rather than in the present, have 
become the great nations in every modern sense. 


CHAPTER III 
The Relation of Thrift to War Economy 


Mere size is of no advantage to a fighter if it be made up 
largely of fat. A lean and muscular man may easily whip a 
fat man of twice his size when all the lean man’s body either 
fights or supplies the fighting parts and half the fat man’s body 
does neither. The same principle applies to nations at war. 
Mere size is of no advantage if it consists of people who neither 
fight nor work to help the fighters by supplying them with what 
they need. They who do neither of these things are mere fat 
in the body politic. .A war is won, not by the side which has 
the most people, but by the side which manages to keep the 
largest number of well trained men on the firing line and to keep 
them best supplied with the materials of war. Only that part 
of the population counts toward the winning of a war which is 
either in the fighting forces or supporting the men who are there 
by keeping them supplied. Others are negligible so far as win- 
ning a war are concerned, whatever other uses they may have 
or think that they have. 

For a modern nation to put its full strength into the fighting 
forces requires a vast production of war materials. To fill the 
fighting ranks and to produce war supplies on an adequate scale 
requires a vast outlay of man-power. Where to get this man- 
power is therefore the fundamental problem of war economy. 
The nation which solves it most effectively has, other things 
equal, the best chance of winning. 

There are three sources from which this fund of man-power 
may be drawn. First, those who were idle in time of peace 
may be put to work. Second, those who were at work may 
work harder by speeding up, by working longer hours, or by 

25 y 


Zor" WAR THRIFT 


/ 
f 


taking fewer holidays. “Third, they who were doing unneces- 
sary things may stop and begin doing necessary things. 

All three sources must be drawn upon in order to get the best 
results. Those who were taking their peace time prosperity in 
the form of leisure must sacrifice their leisure, those who were 
taking it in the form of short hours, slack work, and frequent 
holidays must sacrifice these advantages, and those who were 
taking it in the form of non-essential articles of consumption 
must sacrifice them and cut their consumption down to that 
minimum which is necessary for health, strength and efficiency. 
Otherwise the nation will not be able to exert its full strength 
or to mass its full man-power upon the war and the war-winning 
industries. If the sides are at all evenly matched, the side which 
is willing and able to make these three sacrifices and to utilize 
to the full all these sources of man-power will win, and the side 
which is unwilling to make these sacrifices must expect to suffer 
humiliation and defeat. 

That those who were idle should be put to work is so clear 
as to need no discussion. No one cares, as a inatter of fact, to 
defend the leisure class. Anybody can see that an idle man is 
a man going to waste. It ought to be equally clear that a man 
who is idle a part of every day, or certain days of every week 
is also in part going to waste. Unfortunately, however, this 
proposition strikes so close home to many influential people as 
to produce some discussion and even to create resentment in 
certain quarters. The tendency among such people, especially 
in democratic countries, is even to demand shorter hours and 
more holidays in war time. In autocratic countries they can 
be dealt with by force. Nothing but an intense patriotism which 
will lead them voluntarily to sacrifice ease and amusement for 
the national good can overcome this tendency in a democratic 
country. 

The greatest difficulty, however, is met with in trying to con- 
vince people that they ought to sacrifice material luxuries and 
stop buying non-essentials. People do not see so readily that 
a man who is hired to produce a non-essential is going to waste 


THE RELATION OF.THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 27 


from the standpoint of war economy as truly as though he were 
idle. This difficulty could be overcome, however, were it not 
for the systematic efforts of those who are profiting from the 
production of non-essentials to becloud the issue and nullify 
the efforts of the nation to mobilize its man-power in the essen- 
tial industries. ; 

In both England and the United States the slogan “ business 
as usual” was raised at the beginning of the war, and was kept 
up as long as a patient public would tolerate it. It was per- 
ceived to be a palpable absurdity as soon as people realized what 
was involved. They were soon convinced that the great eco- 

_nomic problem of the war was not that of keeping the national 
energy in the old channels, but of redirecting it into the new 
channels. Questions of money, finance, industry, thrift, taxes, 
war loans, ships, food, labor —in fact, every special question 
was really a part of that great question and must be solved with 
special reference to it. They saw that we must manage in some 
way to redirect the whole energy of the nation and bring it to 
bear upon a new set of objects in order to promote the great 
purpose of winning the war, rather than the multifarious pur- 
poses of peace. They began to see that the first question to be 
asked regarding any proposed public policy, however detailed 
it might be, was: how will it affect the redistribution of the 
national energy? Will it or will it not enable us to mass more 
man-power at the points where it is needed in order to win the 
war? 

But the work of redirecting our national energy met with 
many obstacles, not the least of which was due to the change 
of habit or of occupation which it required of large numbers 
of people. They who had been directing their own energy and 
that of other people toward the objects of peace, found that 
they must in most cases rearrange their plans, their habits and 
their work. It was not always easy to see the connection be- 
tween a change of habit which was required and the winning of 
the war. Therefore, some people were impatient of the neces- 
sary discipline and restraint. Not only is a change of habit 


28 WAR THRIFT 


required, but a general disarrangement of business plans. They 
who were doing in time of peace things which are equally neces- 
sary in time of war, suffered no loss and in some conspicuous 
cases have greatly profited. They who had been doing in time 
of peace things which were not necessary for the winning of 
the war were threatened with a loss of business and of income. 
This doubtless seemed unfair —that some should profit while 
others should lose, as the result of the war. But fairness to 
all concerned and a nice and equitable adjustment of burdens 
and awards in war time has never been possible, either for the 
soldiers in the ranks or for the civilians at home. 

A certain resentfulness was shown by individuals here and 
there of all classes who were unfavorably affected. Manufac- 
turers or dealers in non-essentials became active in obstructing. 
regulations and in opposing economies which were absolutely 
necessary. Advertising sheets, commonly called newspapers, per- 
sistently fostered the idea that there are no non-essential indus- 
tries and they therefore advocated a laissez faire policy with 
respect to their own kind of profiteering. There were strikes 
and threats of strikes on the part of various labor organizations, 
even against the better wisdom and advice of their national 
officers. 

We can not, therefore, single out any particular group or 
class of citizens for reproach. All classes were equally guilty 
and equally meritorious; that is, there were individuals in all 
classes who were willing to suffer inconvenience and hardship 
in order to win the war and there were others who were not. 
There is not the slightest doubt that a strike in any essential 
industry was a hindrance to the great work of massing man- 
power at the points where it was needed. Neither is there the 
slightest doubt that the refusal to economize in food, or to save 
money in order to buy liberty bonds was equally disloyal and 
equally calculated to obstruct the government in its efforts to 
win the war. 

The exponents of the “business as usual”’ fallacy were in 
the earlier days of the war in the habit of asking peremptorily 


THE RELATION OF THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 29 


for a list of the non-essential industries whenever any one sug- 
_ gested a contraction of non-essential business in order to make 
possible the necessary expansion of the essential industries. 
Some even went so far as to say dogmatically that there were no 
non-essential industries. What they obviously meant was that 
there were no undesirable industries, though even such a state- 
ment as that could hardly be defended. However, a desirable 
industry is not necessarily the same as an essential industry. 

The problem of economy for the nation is very much the same 

as for the individual. It is the problem of choosing the more 
important to the exclusion of the less important things; not that 
the less important things are in themselves undesirable, but merely 
that they are less essential than certain other things. Few in- 
dividuals have ever been in the fortunate position of being able 
to afford everything which they might like to have. In time 
of special crisis, the wise individual will deprive himself of many 
things which are in themselves desirable merely because there 
are other and more desirable things which he must have. To 
fail to do this is to fail to meet the crisis. The same necessity 
is upon the nation. 
; /To say that, in the present crisis, there are no non-essential 
industries is almost like saying that all industries are equally 
essential, which is an absurdity. That would be like saying 
that it is just as important that we should have jewelry for pri- 
vate enjoyment as ammunition for national defense, that we 
should have automobiles for pleasure riding as ambulances, army 
trucks, aeroplanes and farm tractors, or that we should have 
those articles of wearing apparel which gratify pride and vanity 
as overcoats and blankets for our soldiers. 

On the other hand, to say that one group of products is more 
important in this crisis than another, does not necessarily and 
in every case mean that the one group should be produced to the 
complete and absolute exclusion of the other. It may simply 
mean that the production of the one should be greatly expanded 
and that of the other greatly contracted. When the individual 
family finds itself facing a crisis, like severe sickness, it is not 


30 WAR THRIFT 


necessary that it stop buying food and clothing in order to buy 
medicines and pay doctor’s bills. It may be necessary, however, 
to buy less expensive food and clothing in order to have money 
to spend for things which, in the crisis, are more important than 
some of the expensive items of food and clothing which were 
formerly bought. 

If it were possible to classify all our industries as absolutely 
essential or absolutely non-essential, with no middle group, the 
problem would be very simple. The government could by edict 
close all the non-essential industries, or refuse them fuel, raw 
materials, freight cars, etc., in order that these things might 
be reserved for the essential industries. The government has 
already stopped the distillation of potable alcohol, and might 
well go farther in the same direction. But the number of in- 
dustries whose products are absolutely useless or non-essential 
is very limited. Most of those which are not classed as abso- 
lutely essential belong in a middle group. Their products are 
desirable or essential in limited quantities, whereas larger quan- 
tities are non-essential. 

Even essentials are frequently bought in non-essential quanti- 
ties. Coal, in moderate quantities, is an essential, but an indi- 
vidual may consume it luxuriously, keeping too many rooms 
warm, or keeping them too warm. Sugar, wheat flour and a 
number of other things which would scarcely be called non- 
essentials may easily be consumed in non-essential quantities. 
But the list extends far beyond these few commodities which 
are woefully scarce. Even millinery could scarcely be called’ 
absolutely non-essential; we need some kind of headgear, but 
we may easily buy too much. 

A government decree is a singularly clumsy and unscientific 
method of dealing with an industry of this middle group. If the 
millinery industry were peremptorily and arbitrarily closed it 
would not only stop the production of unnecessary finery, but 
also of the necessary headgear. It is the consumer rather than 
the producer who must be reached. The best, the most effective 
and the most scientific method is simply to increase our income 


THE RELATION OF THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 31 


taxes until we are forced to cut our consumption down to 
essentials. 

The next question, and in some respects the more difficult 
question, is what to do with the labor which is now employed in 
the non-essential industries. The closing down of a non-essential 
industry, or the reduction of the scale of production to the essen- 
tial limits will undoubtedly throw some men out of employ- 
ment. If it would not save man-power, coal or raw materials, 
nothing would be gained by it. 

In the first place, however, the necessary expansion of the 
essential industries requires a great increase in the supply of 
labor. This alone will take care of all those who are fitted for 
the particular kinds of work which are needed. Our farmers 
are at their wits’ end to know where they are going to get help. 
The shipyards are calling for men by the tens of thousands. 
There never was a time when men were in such demand. 

When our government stopped the distillation of potable 
alcohol, there was no great difficulty in utilizing the labor power 
for other purposes, though there were doubtless individual cases 
of hardship. It is not probable that any war can ever be car- 
ried on without inflicting hardship in individual cases. Never- 
theless, everything possible should be done to reduce these hard- 
ships to the minimum. 

In many individual cases there will be men and women who 
can not easily turn their skill to account in the essential in- 
dustries. In other cases it will involve moving from the place 
called home to another place. Even though the other place be 
equally desirable, nevertheless the change may involve some 
real hardship in addition to the inevitable regrets. However, 
provided the transition can really be made without severe hard- 
ship or positive discomfort, it will be only such a loss and sacri- 
fice as every true citizen must be prepared to make in time of 
war and which our laboring people, like all right-minded people, 
are perfectly willing to make. 

In order to meet this situation adequately, and reduce the 
hardships and discomforts of the transition to the absolute 


32 WAR THRIFT 


minimum, there must be an organization. This organization 
must be big enough to cover the whole country and to penetrate 
into every nook and corner. The Department of Labor in 
Washington is already organizing for the purpose of handling 
this problem. However, unless it is adequately supported, so 
that it may reach into every neighborhood, it may be like a fire 
department with one thousand feet of hose trying to fight a fire 
which is two thousand feet from a hydrant., 

The first thing to do is to see that the organization can ac- 
tually reach every case. Having once perfected an organiza- 
tion adequate to deal with the problem, it must, in the main, 
work out its own methods of procedure. No man is wise enough 
to foresee every difficulty which may arise. However, there are 
a few things which it must obviously do. In the first place it 
should aid in the distribution of the war work in order that 
as much of it as possible be taken over by those industries 
which have had to cut down their production of non-essentials. 
In some cases, no one can say in advance how many, there need 
be no closing down or partial closing down of factories. They 
can simply turn to other kinds of work, to the work which pro- 
duces necessaries rather than luxuries. 

In the second place, our organization should catalogue every 
person who is or is likely to be thrown out of work by the 
closing of non-essential industries. Every person's training and 
capabilities should be noted and recorded. ‘Then, as far as pos- 
sible, no one can say in advance how far this will be possible, 
the persons so catalogued should be drawn upon for the labor 
which will be required for the necessary expansion of certain 
essential industries which must be greatly expanded. It must 
be borne in mind, that, even with the most rigid economy, more 
labor is going to be needed during this war than ever was needed 
before, that the demand for additional labor in the essential 
industries will more than balance any possible falling off in the 
demand in the non-essential industries. With this great fact 
in mind, it will be seen that it is just as important that our 
organization shall discover available supplies of labor for the 


THE RELATION OF THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 33 


expansion of the essential industries as that it shall provide em- 
ployment for the surplus labor from the non-essential industries. 
jAn the third place, our organization should provide with the 
utmost speed adequate training schools where men and women 
may be trained for the industrial needs of the country as officers 
and soldiers are now being trained for the military needs. This 
will, in many respects, be the most important work of our organ- 
ization. Instead of waiting until special kinds of skill are 
needed, it should anticipate the need and have men and women 
trained. They should, while undergoing the course of training, 
be paid a standard minimum wage which will enable them to 
live. 

The first two parts of the work of our organization will pro- 
vide the essential industries with such unskilled labor as they 
require, will also provide a certain amount of skilled labor such 
as is already trained and capable of being fitted in, and will 
provide employment for every worker in a non-essential indus- 
try who can be fitted into the essential industries. The third 
phase of the work of our organization will provide an imme- 
diate living wage for every one who can not at once be fitted 
into an essential industry and will also provide a course of train- 
ing which will soon fit him in at some point where he can earn 
more. 

If our organization will undertake these three kinds of work 
on a comprehensive scale, we can transfer all our productive 
energy from the non-essential industries without any suffering 
and with only such inconvenience or hardship as all high-spirited 
and loyal people are ready and willing to endure for the sake of 
winning the war. This will enable us to mass our man-power 
where it is needed and to avoid the mistake of scattering shot 
too much. It can not be too often repeated that this war will 
be won not by the side which has the most man-power but by 
the side which manages to mass the most man-power at the 
points where it is needed. We have the man-power; the next 
thing is to mass it where it is needed. Nothing else will win 
the war. The more comprehensive and thorough-going our 


34 WAR THRIFT 


plans for the massing of our vast man-power, and the sooner we 
get them into operation, the sooner the war will be over. 

This massing of our man-power, or this concentration of the 
national energy upon the war and the war industries is to be 
accomplished mainly through considerable changes of occupa- 
tion. They who have been doing nothing or doing things that 
have no bearing on the winning of the war are to begin doing 
something which positively helps to win the war. This can 
be accomplished in part through the exercise of government 
authority — conscription of men for the army and the navy is 
such an exercise of government authority. It is possible, of 
course, that laborers as well as soldiers should be conscripted. 
There are other and less direct methods by which government 
authority may accomplish the same purpose. By refusing coal 
or transportation facilities or other essential elements to an in- 
dustry, it may be closed down or greatly restricted in its opera- 
tions. It will therefore be compelled to discharge a certain 
number of men. These may then voluntarily seek employment 
in the essential industries. But this redistribution of man-power 
will have to be accomplished mainly, in any free country, through 
the agency of thrift, either voluntary or involuntary. When 
the people stop buying a given article, or buy it in smaller quan- 
tities than formerly, the industry must either close down or run 
on a reduced scale. This will release a certain amount of man- 
power from the industry in question and make it available for 
the essential industries. 

There was so much opposition to the thrift campaign, the 
newspaper interests of the country were so generally arrayed 
against the government on the subject of thrift, as to raise the 
question in the minds of many publicists as to whether it would 
not be better to give up the campaign for voluntary thrift and 
adopt the general policy of conscription. Of course, if the 
government should adopt such a policy, the non-essential indus- 
tries would be crippled through the loss of men quite as effectively 
as they would through the loss of customers in the program of 
voluntary thrift. The production of non-essentials would be 


THE RELATION OF THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 35 


forcibly and arbitrarily reduced and the consumers of non-essen- 
tials would therefore be compelled, whether they liked it or not, 
to consume less. This would result, therefore, in a kind of 
enforced thrift. Aside from the general unattractiveness of a 
wholesale program of conscription and other exercise of govern- 
ment authority, the proposal itself would be unnecessary if the 
people were willing voluntarily to do what it is proposed that 
the government should compel them to do, that is, cut down 
their consumption of non-essentials. 

The only reason why it is difficult to get capital and men to 
go into the war industries is because they are so profitably em- 
ployed in other industries. If there was no profitable employ- 
ment for either in the unnecessary industries, both labor and 
capital would be glad and anxious to go into the necessary in- 
dustries. 

The only reason they can be so profitably employed in the 
unnecessary industries is because so many of us are willing to 
spend our incomes on unnecessary things. If no one would 
spend any money on unnecessary things, neither capital nor labor 
would have any inducement or motive to continue in the unneces- 
sary industries or in the production of unnecessary things. 

If we continue spending lavishly in the purchase of unneces- 
sary things, then profits and wages will be so high in the un- 
necessary industries that large funds of capital and large num- 
bers of laborers will remain in these industries and will not be 
willing to go into the war industries. In that case, the only 
method of getting labor and capital for the war industries will 
be some form of conscription. Having made one economic 
blunder, that of continuing our luxurious consumption of un- 
necessary things, it will be necessary to counteract the results of 
that folly by an exceedingly clumsy and wasteful device, namely, 
the conscription of capital and labor. 

If we are unwilling voluntarily to cut down our expenditure 
for unnecessary things, the government must interpose its au- 
thority and compel us to do so whether we like it or not. The 
conscription of capital and labor for the necessary industries 


36 WAR THRIFT 


would be one way, but a rather clumsy one, of compelling us 
to cut down our consumption. If capital and labor are forced 
into those industries which are made necessary by the war, there 
will be that much less left to produce the things which we can 
get along without. We must then perforce consume less of 
these things. 

Another rather clumsy way would be for the government to 
issue vast sums of new money or purchasing power with which 
to buy war supplies and to hire men. If we individuals are 
each and every one left with as much money to spend as we had 
before the war, it will take as many men to produce for us as 
it did before the war. But when the government begins to ex- 
pend its new purchasing power, it will be bidding against us with 
its new money and we will be bidding against it with our exist- 
ing incomes. This will send prices skyward. The result of 
these inflated prices will be that we can not buy so many things 
as we did before for the simple reason that our existing incomes 
will not purchase so much as they did before. By this method 
we, as individuals, shall be forced to consume less than we did 
before the war. Another way of putting the same thing would 
be to say that the government with its new purchasing power 
would outbid us with our old purchasing power. It could pay 
such a price for war supplies and men that capital and labor 
would stop producing luxuries for us and go to producing neces- 
saries for the government. We should then be unable to get 
luxuries or unnecessary things. 

On the whole, the best way of compelling us to cut down our 
consumption of unnecessary luxuries would be to tax us. 
Whenever I pay a dollar in taxes I have one dollar less to spend 
on luxuries and in persuading capital and labor to stay in the 
luxury-producing industries. At the same time, the government 
has that same dollar to expend in the purchase of war supplies 
and in persuading capital and labor to go into the war indus- 
tries. If the government will tax to the bone, so that none of 
us has anything to spend on frills and luxuries, capital and labor 
will have no inducement whatever to remain in the frill and 


"THE RELATION OF THRIFT TO WAR ECONOMY 37 


luxury-producing industries. On the other hand, the govern- 
ment will have an abundance to spend on necessary war supphes, 
and in persuading capital and labor to go into the war indus- 
tries. 

Another method, not quite so good, is for the government to 
borrow largely. The money which I spend for a liberty bond 
I can not spend for luxuries. The government has it to spend 
on the necessaries of war. Up to this point, borrowing accom- 
plishes much the same result as taxing. However, after I have 
got my liberty bond, my credit is a little better than it would 
have been if I had paid in taxes the same amount as I paid for 
the bond. This may lead me to purchase, on credit, a little more 
liberally than I would otherwise have done. In that case I shall 
still be trying to keep capital and labor in the unnecessary in- 
dustries and out of the war industries. 

There is no more elementary, fundamental or important truth 
to be learned by our people than the simple truth that every 
time any one spends a dollar for an unnecessary thing he is fur- 
mishing an inducement to capital and labor to continue in the 
production of unnecessary things and to stay out of the war in- 
dustries. He should turn that dollar over to the government 
ito be spent for the necessary things. Then the government can 
we it to induce capital and labor to go into the necessary indus- 
tnes. That is very much better in every way than conscription. 


CHAPTER IV 


The Relation of War Thrift to Reconstruction after the 
War 


What will happen when the government stops buying war 
supplies and hiring men for war purposes? Arithmetic will con- 
vince any one that unless private citizens are then prepared to 
buy more goods and hire more men than they are now doing, 
there must be a slump in buying and considerable unemployment. 
We shall then have just the reverse of the conditions which we 
had when the government began buying such vast quantities of 
war supplies, and hiring so many men for war purposes. If at 
that time private citizens had cut down their purchases in 
amounts corresponding to the increase of government purchases, 
there would have been no total increase of purchases and no 
inflation of prices. But when private citizens tried to keep up 
the old rate of purchasing while the government was purchasing 
enormous quantities of war supplies, there was an enormous in- 
crease in total purchasing and considerable inflation of prices. 
Deflation of prices will follow the close of the war as certainly 
as inflation followed its beginning, unless the purchases of pri- 
vate citizens expand enough to make up for the contraction of 
government purchases. 

How can we manage to have private citizens increase their 
purchases when the war is over? They will scarcely be in a posi- 
tion to do this if they persist in spending all their money now as 
fast as they get it. If they spend it lavishly now, they will only 
force prices up, and they will not have it to spend when the war 
is over; they will inflate prices now and have no means of pre- 
venting deflation when the war is over. But if they save their 


money now and invest it in thrift stamps and liberty bonds, they 
38 


THE RELATION OF WAR THRIFT TO RECONSTRUCTION 39 


will not be bidding against the government for goods and men; 
consequently they will not be inflating prices now. When the 
war is over they will have money with which to increase their 
purchases of goods, and therefore they will have the power to 
prevent a deflation of prices. The program of war thrift is not 
only a sound method of financing the war, it is also the best 
method of insuring against deflation of prices and general busi- 
ness stagnation in the decade after the war. 

When a man invests a part of his income in government securi- 
ties instead of spending it all for immediate consumption, he is 
merely deferring his consumption. Instead of consuming goods 
now, he virtually saves up his money in order to buy them later 
on, when men can be spared to produce them as they can not 
be spared now. There is a double advantage in this. By con- 
suming less while the war is on, he releases man-power from the 
production of things which he can do without. That man- 
power is therefore available for government service. By thus 
saving in the present, he will have more money to spend in the 
future. He can then increase his consumption and employ the 
man-power which will be released from government service. 

The first of these purposes, that is, the releasing of man-~ 
power from the production of luxuries in order that it may serve 
the government, is by far the more important of the two, but 
even the second, that of reemploying that man-power when the 
government is through with it, is of great importance, especially 
to business men and laboring men. It would be a very short- 
sighted policy to ignore either of them, but the beauty of it is 
that both purposes hang together. You can not promote one 
without also promoting the other. Therefore, every enlightened 
citizen should preach and practice war thriit. 

The sound common-sense of the people of every nation that 
ever amounted to anything has always approved of thrift and 
disapproved of extravagance. It is only when a few haltf-edu- 
cated people get slightly sophisticated that they begin to indulge 
in the pestilential nonsense that we prosper by extravagance. 
The thrifty person spends money, and spends it freely, for things 


40 WAR THRIFT 


of large and permanent value, or for things which leave him 
stronger physically, mentally, morally or economically. Such 
people get on in the world while the thriftless people never im- 
prove their condition. The thrifty nation likewise prospers 
while the thriftless nation remains in poverty. The thrifty na- 
tion is the nation to which men immigrate to improve their con- 
dition. The thriftless nation is the nation from which they 
emigrate to get away from bad conditions. 

The largest, the most important, and far-reaching purpose for 
which: a man can spend his money now is for national defense. 
He who spends his money in such a way as to insure the future 
of our country may not be laying up treasure in Heaven, but he 
is certainly laying up treasure on earth for his children and his 
children’s children. Besides, our government pays the money 
all back with interest. It is this latter aspect of the case which 
will be of great importance in the days of reconstruction. It 
is this which will enable us to tide over that trying period when 
we are reabsorbing into productive industry the man-power 
which is now absorbed by the war and the war industries. 


CHAPTER V 
Compulsory Thrift 


In case the people do not voluntarily adopt the general pro- 
gram of thrift, they will be compelled by circumstances to re- 
duce their consumption whether they like it or not. There are 
three principal means by which this will be accomplished. The 
first, the most clumsy and the least scientific method is through 
the direct exercise of official compulsion in giving priority to 
certain industries. Those industries which the wisdom of pub- 
lic officials decides to be non-essential may be refused raw ma- 
terials, fuel or transportation. The consumers of the products 
of the industries thus singled out for official strangulation must, 
of necessity, reduce their consumption. To a Prussianized mind 
this doubtless looks like a very direct and effective way of com- 
pelling people to consume what they ought to consume and stop 
consuming the things they ought not-to consume. Even this 
method is, of course, justified if there were no better method. 
The necessities of the war situation require that the war and the 
war industries shall have precedence over everything else. The 
redirection of our national energy must be effected somehow, 
and a bad way of doing it is infinitely better than not getting it 
done at all. The government is compelled to resort to this 
method if the people will not do it in a better way, and should 
not be criticized. The people who have made it necessary should 
criticize themselves. 

Another way of accomplishing the same thing is through the 
inflation of prices. If the people are not willing to economize, 
but insist on buying as much as ever, they merely bid against 
the government. The government will have supplies whatever 


the cost. It will bid high enough to get them away from its 
41 


42 WAR THRIFT 


private competitors. This forces prices up, and rising prices 
make it impossible for people with fixed incomes to buy as much 
as they did before. They at least are forced by this situation 
to reduce their consumption. 

This method would not work so very badly, from the stand- 
point of the immediate present, if all the people had fixed in- 
comes. Some of the people, however, find their incomes in- 
creasing as fast as, or faster than, prices rise. The producers 
of the high-priced commodities, especially those whose income 
comes to them in the form of profits, may find themselves in a 
position of greater relative prosperity. Their incomes are so 
increased as to enable them to buy more goods, even at the 
high prices, than they ever bought before. This throws the 
compulsory saving entirely on those whose incomes do not keep 
pace with prices. 

Other classes, especially those whose incomes take the form 
of wages or salaries which are frequently readjusted, begin an 
agitation for increased wages and salaries on the ground that 
they are not able to live so well in war time as they did in peace 
time. It does not seem to occur to them that men ought not to 
live so well in war time as in peace time. ‘The story of the 
agitation for increased incomes which will enable people to buy 
as much under war prices as they bought under peace prices is, 
on the whole, one of the most sordid and humiliating parts of 
the history of the war. It is only exceeded by the story of the 
opposition to heavy taxation. 

The final result of the tendency of profits to increase, and 
of the prompt agitation for increased wages and salaries, is to 
throw the entire burden of this kind of enforced thrift upon 
those whose incomes can not be increased in war time. ; 

By far the most scientific and least clumsy method of enforc- 
ing thrift is the third method, that is, the method of taxation. 
A properly adjusted system of taxation will compel all classes 
who are in a position to economize to do so during the contin- 
uance of the war. It will retard or prevent the inflation of 
prices, and it will leave to the people themselves to decide what 


COMPULSORY THRIFT 43 


they will continue to buy and in what quantities they will con- 
tinue to buy them with their diminished incomes. The people 
themselves can, in general, decide more intelligently than Wash- 
ington officialdom what they want, and what industries should 
be kept going to supply their wants. A reduction of consumption 
will-be made necessary by reason of the reduced incomes re- 
sulting from heavy taxation, but the people themselves can then 
decide what they will buy with their reduced incomes. They 
will generally decide that question more wisely than it can be 
decided for them by priority boards or any other branch of a 
bureaucratic system of control. 

Under a wise system of taxation, and in so far as the taxes 
affect the question, private purchases must of necessity decrease 
in exact proportion as government purchases increase. For 
every dollar which the government has to spend, some private 
individual has a dollar less to spend. This is the most exact 
and scientific way yet devised to prevent private individuals from 
bidding against the government and inflating prices. 

It seems to be accepted as a foregone conclusion, however, by 
certain students of public finance that such a war as the pres- 
ent one could not possibly be financed either exclusively or 
mainly by taxation. Borrowing on a vast scale is therefore 
assumed to be necessary. It does not seem to the present writer 
that any one has set forth adequate reasons for this view. The 
purpose of this note is to discuss the general aspects of this 
question, without going into detail as to the particular forms 
or methods of taxation which should be adopted. 

There may be differences of opinion as to just what is meant 
by the word “impossible”’ as it is used by those who assert 
the impossibility. That very heavy taxes would be required if 
the government should undertake to pay the expenses of the war 
without borrowing, and that such heavy taxes would profoundly 
disturb business affairs, may be taken for granted. If the ef- 
fective incomes of the people are materially reduced by taxation, 
they wili have materially less to spend, and this alone will greatly 
disturb all businesses whose function it is to supply the people 


44 WAR THRIFT , 


with what they want to buy with their spending money. But 
the same is true of borrowing. Unless the people find means 
of purchasing government bonds without reducing their pur- 
chases of other things, the same disturbance of business will 
occur. What they spend for government bonds would, in this 
case, be as effectively diverted from the normal course of ex- 
penditure as though the same amount were spent in the purchase 
of tax receipts. 

If, on the other hand, the people find means of purchasing 
government bonds without reducing their purchases of other 
things, another kind of disturbance in the form of an inflation 
of prices will result. Whether this form of disturbance is worse 
than the other or not need not concern us here, since we are 
discussing the possibility of raising enough revenue by taxation, 
not with the relative merits of this and some other method. It 
may be remarked, however, that to turn money over to the 
government in the form of a loan and then proceed to bid against 
the government for supplies by undiminished purchases is, in 
part at least, to nullify the loan. It is virtually to turn some 
money over to the government and then compel the government 
to pay a higher price for its supplies. To turn the same amount 
of money over to the government and then, by that full amount 
to reduce one’s own purchases, is to give the government the 
full benefit of that money. 

It is of the utmost importance that we distinguish at the 
start between the economic and the political limits of taxa- - 
tion. By the economic limit is meant how much the people could 
pay in the form of taxes if they were willing. By the political 
limit is meant how much they will be willing to pay. From the 
standpoint of the legislator and the administrator the latter 
is quite as important a question as the former. No matter how 
much the people could pay in the form of taxes, he dare not 
put upon them more than they are willing to pay. If heavy 
taxes would provoke resentment and political revolt, it would be 
a great mistake to levy them. Just as it is better to lose a 
dozen battles than one election if losing an election meant a 


COMPULSORY THRIFT 45 


vote against the continuance of the war, so it would be better 
to adopt-the most clumsy and unscientific method of raising 
revenue than to lose an election if it stopped the war prema- 
turely. From the standpoint of any government authority it 
might literally be impossible, therefore, to finance a war by taxa- 
tion even though the people were abundantly able to pay all the , 
necessary taxes. ; 

Even an academic economist who was giving advice to the 
government as to what it ought to do in the matter of war 
finance would be compelled to have regard to the political lim- 
its of taxation. If, however, our academic economist were not 
advising the government but the people themselves, the case 
would be different. If he were trying to influence the decision 
of the government official who had the immediate power of de- 
ciding the question, he would, of course, consider the probable 
ratio of feathers to squawking. But if his purpose were to in- 
fluence the people themselves and their decision as to what kind 
of a financial policy they would support, the question of squawk- 
ing. need not enter into his discussion. It would sound rather 
futile to tell the people, “ you are abundantly able to pay such 
and such amounts in taxation, but you do not possess the neces- 
sary loyalty or fortitude, therefore you will resent such taxes and 
refuse your support to the government or the party which levies 
them. For this reason it is impossible to finance this war by 
taxation. You must therefore insist that your government should 
raise its money in ways which will be more pleasing and less 
irritating to you, that is, you must insist that the government 
borrow most of the money from you instead of taxing you be- 
yond what is agreeable.” The only sound and sensible reason 
for talking to the general public on the subject of war finance is 
to try to make them willing to support whatever method looks 
best on purely economic grounds. In so far as taxation is a 
good method, the purpose of public discussion is to make the 
people willing to pay whatever they car pay in this form, not 
to convince them that they can’t pay more than they are willing 
to pay. 


46 WAR THRIFT 


Assuming that we are considering the limits of taxation from 
the standpoint of the general public and not from that of the 
government, the legislator, or the tax administrator, and that 
we are therefore interested in the economic rather than the 
political limits of taxation, to what extent and in what sense 
would it be impossible to finance a war of this magnitude by 
taxation alone? In the first place, and with some qualifications 
which will be mentioned later, the average man can, if he is 
willing, pay as much in the form of taxes as he can in the form 
of loans. A tax receipt is less desirable property than a govern- 
ment bond and he may not be so willing to buy the one as the 
other, but so far as his ability is concerned, it is as great in the 
one case as in the other.. The present writer can testify that, in 
his own case, at least, every dollar that he has spent on govern- 
ment securities, he could have spent, quite as easily, but much 
less gladly perhaps, in taxes. The government may be able to 
coax more money from the average man’s pocket by offering 
him a bond than by offering him a tax receipt, but that is a 
political rather than an economic question, though it is a very, im- 
portant and a perfectly legitimate question for the government 
to consider. The people who are to be taxed are not compelled 
to consider it at all. If, therefore, we were to consider the 
question in this general form, without the qualifications which 
are to follow, we should have to conclude that it is as easy to 
finance a war by taxation alone as by borrowing or by a combi- 
nation of both. Men can not lend the government any more 
money than they are able to part with, and if they are able to 
part with it at all, they could part with it in the form of taxes 
as well as in the form of loans to the government. 

The first qualification to this sweeping conclusion is based 
on the fact that a government bond is an asset while a tax receipt 
is not. A man who possesses a government bond is, other things 
equal, better off, more solvent, further from the verge of bank- 
ruptcy, and has better credit than he would have if he merely 
held a tax receipt for a like amount. A government bond is 
bankable but a tax receipt is not. A man who is doing business 


COMPULSORY THRIFT 47 


partly on credit, will be in a much better financial condition and 
may carry on his business with less disturbance after he has 
spent a large amount on a government bond than he would be if 
he had spent a similar amount in taxes. In some cases this is a 
matter of great importance. On the other hand, this leads to a 
very dangerous tendency, not so much on the part of the business 
man as on that of the general consumer. He is tempted to use 
his new asset as a basis for credit, and to continue purchasing 
goods in undiminished quantities, thus inflating prices, producing 
profound business disturbances and necessitating wholesale eco- 
nomic readjustments. This consideration goes a long way 
toward nullifying the advantage of unimpaired credit to the 
business man. 

Another and a more important qualification is that any tax 
system is inflexible and mechanical in its operation. Because 
two men, A and B, have equal incomes it does not follow that 
they can part with equal sums of money with equal disturbance 
to their economic relations. A may be engaged in a business 
which, in the interest of the war, ought to be expanded, while B 
may have no such opportunity. A, for example, may be a wheat 
grower who needs a tractor to enable him to increase his crop, 
while B is a manufacturer of confectionery whose business ought 
to be contracted. If both are taxed, let us say, to the amount 
of one-fourth of their incomes, it might prevent A from buying 
the tractor and therefore restrict his production, whereas B 
might continue on his former scale of production. A govern- 
ment loan, however, can adjust itself more easily to the situation. 
A might better put all the money he can part with into the 
expansion of his business, whereas B might put half his year’s 
income into government bonds, even allowing his plant to de- 
teriorate somewhat through depreciation. In this case, the gov- 
ernment has secured as much money as it would if it had taxed 
them both to the amount of one-fourth of their incomes. At 
the same time it has permitted A to expand a business which 
needed expansion and B to retrench in a business where retrench- 
ment was desirable. 


48. WAR THRIFT 


On the other hand, there is the possibility that the opposite 
result would follow — that is, it is quite possible that A, who 
ought to buy a tractor and increase his production of wheat, 
would decide to buy a government bond instead, and that B, who 
ought to retrench his business, would refuse to buy the govern- 
ment bond and put all his surplus money into advertising or into 
a bigger selling organization or other means of counteracting 
any tendency of his business to contract. If this were the 
result of the government loan, it would obviously be better to 
tax them both equally. As to what would be done by the aver- 
age man in the position of A or B, we can only conjecture on 
the basis of our knowledge of the ordinary economic motives. 
Individual men react in very different ways to the same situation, 
but we must expect that on the average and in the long run, a 
larger number will react in the direction of their economic in- 
terests than in the opposite direction. Among the multifarious 
motives that affect the individual's choice, the desire for gain 
is one, and a persistent one. It would undoubtedly be to the 
wheat farmer's economic interest to grow more wheat at a time 
when there is a great demand for it and it is selling at a high 
price. If the possession of a tractor would greatly enlarge his 
production, he would have a powerful motive for desiring to 
possess the tractor. This motive would also be supplemented 
by the patriotic motive of desiring to help in the supplying of 
the nation. Therefore, he would, in all probability, be likely to 
spend as much money as he could part with for a tractor rather 
than for a government bond, if he could not afford both. The 
same principle would apply to every one else in the position of 
A, that is, of every one engaged in a business for whose product 
there was an extreme demand. As to those in the position of B, 
the case is not quite so clear, but if the demand for confectionery 
is actually falling off, it would not be in harmony with B's eco- 
nomic interests to invest much new capital in his business. The 
opportunity to invest in a government bond would appear to be 
somewhat more favorable as compared with the opportunity to 
invest any new capital in the manufacture of a commodity for 


COMPULSORY THRIFT 49 


which there was a decreasing demand. Again, the motive of 
patriotism would pull in the same direction and we should expect 
that a large proportion of the men in B's situation would spend 
their surplus money on government securities rather than in the 
expansion of their business. Therefore, it looks as though goy- 
ernment borrowing would be more flexible and less mechanical 
than government taxation as a means oi raising the same amount 
of money. The impact would fall where it would produce on 
the average less of a shock than would be true in the case of 
taxes. 

A properly developed and administered credit system, however, 
would help to minimize the difference. If the function of bank- 
ing was conceived to be that of financing productive enterprises 
instead of being an advanced form of pawn-broking, the fact 
that A had an opportunity to enlarge his production of a much 
needed product would itself give him ample credit, assuming him 
to be honest. That is, it would be the function of his banker to 
finance any operation of A’s which was economically sound. If 
by possessing a tractor he could add greatly to his wheat crop 
and the wheat crop was sure to sell at a high price, that in itself 
would be a sufficient basis for credit, assuming, again, the hon- 
esty of A. In such a case A could buy his government security 
out of his surplus income and then pay for his tractor out of 
its own future product. However, if the excess profits tax were 
injudiciously administered, it would destroy even this basis of 
credit. A would not be able to buy his tractor either out of pres- 
ent savings or out of future income. 

There are certain minor qualifications which are frequently 
urged, but which have little or no validity. In the first place, 
it is urged that through an arrangement with his banker, a man 
can arrange to pay for his government bond in such ways and 
at such times as are most convenient, whereas the tax collector 
is less accommodating. That, however, is a mere matter of the 
administration of the taxing system. If government officials 
were less arbitrary, or were as willing to meet the convenience of 
citizens as a private agency is to meet that of its customers, this 


50 WAR THRIFT 


could be arranged.. Perhaps, however, it is too much to expect 
that government officials will ever become so accommodating as 
this. In that case one of the limits of taxation would be the 
arbitrariness of government officials or, perhaps, their laziness 
or unwillingness to take the trouble necessary to accommodate 
the public. 

Another qualification, which also proves to be invalid, is that 
while men must pay their taxes in cash, they can buy their govy- 
ernment bonds on credit through the banks. In so far as this 
is merely a device through which the purchaser of a government 
bond can pay the money when it is convenient, this is covered in 
the preceding paragraph. In so far as it means a permanent or 
a long continued expansion of bank credit, so that men do not 
cut down their purchases of goods for their own use in pro- 
portion as they lend money to the government, it works badly 
rather than well. It merely inflates prices and forces the gov- 
ernment to pay larger sums of money for given quantities of 
supplies, and therefore makes increased revenue in the form of 
taxes or loans necessary. It is of the utmost importance that 
if the borrowing policy is adopted, those who lend to the govy- 
ernment should lend out of savings rather than through the ex- 
pansion of their credit. Taxation has this undoubted advantage 
over borrowing. Taxation can not possibly be made a basis for 
expanded credit. They who are taxed must of necessity, there- 
fore, pay their taxes out of savings. 

There is another qualification which scarcely needs discus- 
sion, since even the most extreme advocates of the taxation pol- 
icy accept it. It is that at the beginning of the war, when a 
large revenue is immediately required, borrowing must of neces- 
sity be resorted to because the machinery of taxation is slow in 
its operation and can only begin to yield a revenue after a num- 
ber of weeks, or months, or possibly years have passed. Bor- 
rowing is the only method by which the treasury can be kept full 
during this initial period. 

There are few who advocate a policy of taxation exclusively 
or a policy of borrowing exclusively. Practically everybody is 


COMPULSORY THRIFT : 51 


. agreed that there must be a combination of both. The only 
clear difference of opinion is as to which policy should receive 
the principal emphasis. Shall we encourage the government to 
tax as far as possible and borrow only that which is necessary 
to supplement the income from taxation, or shall we encourage 
the government to borrow all it can and then raise by taxation 
whatever is necessary to supplement the income from that source? 
The argument that the government can not raise enough revenue 
by taxation is usually urged in support of the latter policy. 
Properly understood, however, it seems to the present writer that 
it argues more strongly in favor of the former policy. 


CHAPTER VI 
The Opposition to War Thrift 


The slowness with which large bodies are set in motion is 
often adduced as an explanation of the time spent in preliminary 
discussion before action can be taken in a great democracy. Ex- 
cept by the assumption of almost autocratic powers on the part 
of the administration, nothing effective can be done in a de- 
mocracy until a majority has reached a conclusion and made up 
its mind. This is usually a slow process and must be preceded 
by a vast amount of conversation. 

Next to such vital questions as the building up of our army 
and navy, the organization of our war industries, and keeping 
our national treasury supplied with the means of paying the 
expenses of the war, no question has been more widely and 
vehemently discussed than that of war thrift. Whether our peo- 
ple should be urged to reduce their consumption to the neces- 
saries of life or to spend their money freely even for things which 
they do not need, has occupied a great deal-of time on the public 
platform and considerable space in the ephemeral press. In the 
free atmosphere of a public platform, the advocates of war 
thrift have had things very much their own way; but in the 
controlled channels of the public press, the advocates of extrava- 
gance have been favored. Since most of our newspapers and 
magazines live mainly upon the advertising of non-essentials, it 
has seemed at times as though such influence as they are sup- 
posed to exert has been thrown on the side of extravagance 
rather than of thrift. Very few newspapers, in fact, have been 
willing to publish anything in support of thrift, but their col- 
umns have been open to any kind of an argument which seemed 
to support the policy “ business as usual,” ‘‘ generous buying,” 
“keeping money in circulation,’ and so forth. 

52 


THE OPPOSITION TO WAR THRIFT 53 


In spite of numerous unqualified requests on the part of the 
President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and every one else in 
a position of great responsibility with respect to the war that the 
people practice thrift during the war, the attitude of the press 
remained, during the first year, hostile rather than favorable. 
It was not until the public utterances of the men in authority, 
supported by the persuasion of multitudes of speakers on the 
open platform, convinced the hard-headed, clear-sighted public 
that the newspapers were wrong and that the advocates of thrift 
were right, that the newspapers generally gave even a half-hearted 
support to the thrift campaign. Since then there has been a 
gradual modification of the tone of the public press. Until late 
in the spring of 1918 the characteristic advertisement in any of 
our large, metropolitan dailies warned people against too much 
thrift and advised them to buy freely, especially of the particular 
article mentioned in the advertisement. Since that time, many 
of these advertisements have contained a general, abstract en- 
dorsement of the idea of thrift, but urged the buying of the 
specific article in question as an exceptional case. This in itself 
is a very suggestive symptom of the general change in the atti- 
tude of the public. The reading public has in some way influ- 
enced the attitude of the editors. Instead of leading public 
opinion, the average editor tries first to find out what public 
opinion sanctions and then to see how vociferously he can adyo- 
cate it. He has gradually found that the public does not approve 
his opposition to thrift and he is gradually coming around to 
a reasonable point of view with respect to thrift. 

How uncompromising and arbitrary the editorial hostility to 
thrift was, is shown by a little episode which occurred in Boston 
early in the year 1918. A number of the Boston papers had 
been carrying a quarter-page advertisement which came to be 
known as the “ We” and “ They” advertisements. The adver- 
tisement was a general denunciation of those to whom it referred 
as “ They,” the “ Enemy,’ who were urging thrift, and a gen- 
eral self-adulation of those who referred to themselves as “‘ We,”’ 
who advocated generous buying, keeping money in circulation, 


54 WAR THRIFT 


expanding business and so on. It did not advertise anything in 
particular, but urged generous and liberal buying in general. 
Not ‘ business as usual,’ but ‘“ more business than ever,’ was 
a part of the general campaign of extravagance of which these 
advertisements were samples. A number of citizens of Cam- 
bridge, feeling somewhat incensed because of these advertise- 
ments, drew up a protest, signed it, and sent it to the papers 
which were publishing them. No attention was paid to the pro- 
test, but the advertisements continued for a short time and then 
stopped.* 

A public-spirited citizen of Brookline, Mr. Sinclair Kennedy, 
sought to counteract the effect of these advertisements by asking 
the papers to publish extracts from addresses by President Wil- 
son, Secretary McAdoo and Mr. Frank A. Vanderlip. This was 
refused. He then offered these extracts as paid advertisements 
at regular advertising rates on the same terms as the “ We” 
and ‘* They ” advertisements had been published. His offer was 
refused by several of the papers. The following is a copy of a 
deposition which tells the story. 


COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT 


I, Joseph P. Draper of Canton, Massachusetts, on oath depose and say that 
I am an attorney dt law with an office at 15 State Street, Boston, Massa- 
chusetts, and that on March 5, 1918, Mr. Sinclair Kennedy of Brookline, 


1The Cambridge Tribune published it. It ran as follows: 


STRONG PROTEST AGAINST THE “WE AND THEY” 
ADVERTISING 


We, the undersigned citizens of Cambridge, protest against the “We and 
They ” advertisements which are appearing in various Boston papers, as cal- 
culated to do great harm to our country by interfering with war thrift as 
advised by President Wilson, Secretary McAdoo, and Mr. Vanderlip, of the 
war savings committee. 

W. R. SPALDING, 

T. N. CARVER, 

A. B. Hart, 

W. J. V. OSTERHOUT, 
RoLAND THAXTER, 
Marra M. Cazor, 

C. B. GULIcK, 

Paut H. Hanus, 

Davis R. Dewey, 
REBECCA CLARK WINTER. 


THE OPPOSITION TO WAR THRIFT 55 


Massachusetts, requested me to make a contract with The Boston Post, a 
newspaper published in Boston, for the publication of a certain advertisement 
connected with the Thrift Campaign, a copy of which is as follows: 


THE PRESIDENT 


In his address to the farmers, 
January 31, 1918, said: 


“Tt means the utmost economy, even to the point where the pinch comes. 
It means the kind of concentration and self-sacrifice which is involved in the 
field of battle itself, where the object always looms greater than the indi- 
vidual.” 


THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 


In a statement published in the Official Bulletin, 
December 28, 1917, said: 


“The people of the United States can render the most far-rcaching patri- 
otic service by refraining from the purchase of all unnecessary articles, and 
by confining themselves to the use of only such things and the expenditure 
of only such money as is necessary to maintain their health and efficiency.” 


THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS 
COMMITTEE 


At the Boston City Club, 
December 3, 1917, said: 


The government should have a free track in the workshop. It should 
have labor which is not competed for by unnecessary things. No matter how 
well we can afford to buy unnecessary things, no matter how well we can 
afford to do it, the government can not afford to have us do it.” 

That in pursuance of Mr. Kennedy’s request, I called up the advertising 
department of The Boston Post by telephone and described the advertisement 
and was immediately referred to Mr. A. H. Marchant, the Manager of the 
paper. Mr. Marchant stated that he was acquainted with the advertisement 
as he had seen it in The Boston Herald and Journal (where it had appeared 
for two editions) and that he had notified his advertising department that if a 
request came from Mr. Kennedy for an insertion of this advertisement in the 
Post, Mr. Kennedy should be referred to him. He then told me that he con- 
sidered that this advertisement was against public policy and that as a matter 
of principle he would not publish it in his paper. I called his attention to the 
fact that the advertisement merely contained quotations from the President 
of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the 
National War Savings Committee and that the advice which the advertise- 
ment contained would seem accordingly to be given upon good authority. 
He declared that the Secretary of the Treasury had, he believed, changed his 
views upon the subject since the statement above quoted and that, as to the 
other authorities, short excerpts from speeches were often misleading and 
he considered these were. Notwithstanding what I said, he was of the opin- 


56 WAR THRIFT 


ion that the advertisement was a bad one and that he would not publish it. 
That the foregoing is the substance of this telephone conversation which 
lasted five or ten minutes. 


In Witness WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of 
April, 1918. 


(Signed) JosEPH P. DRAPER. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me, 
(Signed) Henry L. BurnHAM, 
(Seal) Notary Public. 


My commission expires January 10, 1924. 


The Boston Herald accepted the advertisement and entered 
into a contract with Mr. Kennedy to publish the same material 
as a quarter-page advertisement. It was to publish four issues 
in all at $250 per issue, receiving the $1,000 in advance. After 
two issues the advertisement was stopped. Later on $500 was 
returned to Mr. Kennedy, for which Mr. Kennedy gave the 
receipt, a copy of which appears on page 57. 

The Evening Transcript alone of all the Boston papers, carried 
the advertisement through four issues. 

While federal officials and all those in positions of great na- 
tional responsibility were clear in their advocacy of thrift as a 
war measure, unfortunately many State officials and members 
of Councils of Defense were more susceptible to the influence 
of local profiteers. The Massachusetts Council consistently re- 
fused to take any position in favor of thrift and such influence 
as it exerted was generally against thrift. 

These cases are mentioned not because Boston newspapers 
were more venal or less loyal than papers in other cities. They 
are mentioned merely as concrete examples of a very general 
attitude on the part of publications everywhere which prosper 
largely on the advertising of non-essentials. The Philadelphia 
Public Ledger, in the midst of the Christmas shopping season of 
1917, even went to the length of publishing an article by Will 
Payne to prove that there was no such a thing as a non-essential 
industry! Much the same attitude was taken by the New York 
Times} and a large number of others. 


1See article in the issue of June 8, 1918, entitled “Edison Sees Luxury 
War-Winning Force.” 


3 
8 
x 
5 


MV REANEINSs SRAV ELE 


STATEMENT 
Do Not Detach 


DATE AMOUNT 


Pay TO THE OEDEE OF 


tHe NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK 


$5 72 


Boston PuBLISHIN ANY 


Treasurer 
Director 


Receipt te hereby acknowledged of five hundred (500} 
dollars, -paid to Sincleir Kennedy by the Boston Herald and Journal 
for failure to carry out its contract to publish in its issues of 
Februery 26, 28, March 2 and 5, 1918, e quarter page advertisement 
consisting of quotations from President Wilson, Treasurer McAdoo, 
and the Chairman of the War Savings Committee, said advertisement 
having been stopped by the Herald after its second publication on 
February 28, 1918. 

The Boston Herald and Journal joins herein in eclknowe 
ledgment that the said sum is paid and received on account of the 
above described breach of contract, and in full of all claims on 


the part of said Kennedy. 


eye. ioe eee 


Asst. Treasurer 


58 WAR THRIFT 


During the summer of 1917, the writer traveled from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific Coast, visiting a large number of cities 
in all sections of the country. In nearly every city visited there 
were placards displayed in the windows of retail stores warning 
people against too much economy. The following is a sample: 


BUSINESS AS USUAL 
BEWARE OF THRIFT AND UNWISE ECONOMY 


MONEY BREEDS MONEY 


During the summer of 1918 the writer traveled extensively — 
between the Atlantic Coast and the Rocky Mountains, visiting 
numerous cities in all the intervening sections of the country. 
No such placards were seen. 

This growth of public opinion and general cna of attitude 
on the part of the newspapers was, of course, not universal. 
Certain special publications which, even more than the average 
newspaper, live on advertising, continued to fight a losing battle 
in favor of high pressure selling, and the “ efficient ’ persuasion 
of people to buy things which they did not need. There con- 
tinues also to be sporadic cases of journals whose editors failed 
to grasp the situation, and kept on advocating liberal buying, 
and refusing to publish anything in favor of thrift. The Cali- 
fornia Club Woman was a conspicuous example of this type. 
But these humiliating exhibitions of editorial ignorance need not 
be catalogued further. The samples given are enough to show 
how many diverse interests there are in a great democracy to 
compete with what ought to be the supreme interest, that of mass- 
ing our man-power upon the war and the war industries. 

In the above mentioned article in the New York Times, Mr. 
Edison is alleged to have said: 

We hear a good deal of talk about luxuries. Luxury is a relative term. 


What is luxury for one man is almost a necessity to another. No matter 
what is said or done, the increased earning power of the American people 


THE OPPOSITION TO WAR THRIFT 59 


is going to result in the increased purchase of luxuries, and the urge to 
possess luxuries will do more to speed up production than all the prize con- 
tests, bonus plans, and proclamations that can be devised. The laziest and 
most non-productive man in the world is the man whose wants are the 
simplest. The fellow who has a family that wants luxuries and is endeavor- 
ing to gratify them is the man who is usually working the hardest and pro- 
ducing the most. 

Some of you may have been told that music is a non-essential. My views 
on that subject are probably well known to you. The time is not far distant 
when music will be recognized as a greater essential than books. Don’t let 
anybody make you believe that music is a non-essential. Merchants who sell 
good musical instruments are performing a useful service to the nation. 


The eminent source of this alleged statement entitles it to 
some consideration. That luxury is a relative term is, of 
course, a truism. It furnishes a valid argument against any 
attempt on the part of the government, or any other compulsory 
power, to decide upon a list of luxuries and to prohibit their 
use or consumption. Government officials, like other human 
beings are prone to 


“Compound for sins they are inclined to, 
By damning those they have no mind to.” 


What they would decide to be luxuries would very likely:-prove 
to be necessaries for some one else. Again when force from 
without rather than persuasion is exerted to compel a man to 
forego the consumption of things which he very much desires, 
the chances are that he will merely have one less motive for 
working. But the case is quite otherwise when, instead of per- 
emptory government orders prohibiting the use of certain things, 
the individual is persuaded to care more for national defense, 
for the success of our armies, and the comfort of our soldiers 
than for some forms of gratification which he previously en- 
joyed. This does not reduce, but rather increases, the number 
of motives for work. Again, it leaves the individual free to 
decide what are, for him, the least essential or the least desirable 
luxuries. 

The truism attributed to Mr. Edison therefore fails abso- 
lutely as an argument against a general campaign for volun- 
tary thrift, as a means of making voluntary loans to the govern- 


60 WAR THRIFT 


ment. Such a campaign adds a new motive to industry, and will 
therefore make men work harder than ever. In order to enable 
the individual to buy the new article, that is, a government se- 
curity, he is left free to decide for himself which one of his 
other interests he must sacrifice in order to satisfy this new 
interest. 

As to the suggestion that music is an essential rather than a 
non-essential, the reply is— certainly, so also are coal, wheat 
flour, shoes, clothing and a number of other things. But all 
essentials should be used in moderation and not in non-essential 
quantities. To say that clothing is essential is not necessarily 
to imply that a man is justified in buying twenty, or ten, or even 
two new suits a year unless he really needs them for comfort 
and decency. Likewise, to say that music is essential does not 
necessarily /carry with it the conclusion that it is essential in 
unlimited quantities. The individual who spent an inordinate 
amount of time or money in the passive enjoyment of music 
could scarcely excuse himself by repeating the general, abstract 
proposition that! music is essential.” 

However, if the government, or any other authority, should 
arbitrarily decide that all music was non-essential and forcibly 
prohibit it, no sensible person would defend such an action. 
But avhen the government urges economy upon all the people 
and asks them all to turn as much money as they can part with 
into the public treasury to be used in national defense, such 
an action is completely defensible. This will require every one 
who ‘responds to the appeal to cast about to see where he can 
cut down his expenditures for private enjoyment with the least 
hardship to himself. Some may even find that they can, with- 
out serious loss, spend a little less upon music. Others will 
decide upon other forms of saving, and thus every one will re- 
duce somewhat that form of consumption which is to him most 
luxurious or least essential. Any one who would oppose such 
a campaign with the same arguments or statements that he would 
use against an arbitrary prohibition of a definite list of luxuries, 
would show very little discrimination. 


CHAPTER VII 
The Grounds of the Opposition 


It is necessary to examine in some detail the grounds of the 
opposition to the policy of war thrift. The first objection and 
the one most frequently heard is that unless business is kept 
prosperous, there will be no means of financing the war; that 
is, no one will have the money with which to pay taxes or pur- 
chase government bonds. 

To begin with, that proposition attributes a power to money 
which it does not possess. Money does no fighting and can not 
be used in beating an enemy. It is only a means by which the 
government hires the men and buys the goods which are effective 
in war. The fundamental and ultimate question is not, there- 
fore, that of money, but of men and materials. If, by keeping 
business prosperous is meant keeping men and capital employed 
in the prewar industries, this argument would defeat its own 
ends, for however much money the government had, it could 
not get these men and materials without taking them away 
from some of the non-essential industries. 

It is conceivable that a war might be carried on without any 
money whatsoever, though it would be exceedingly difficult. 
That is, if the government could sufficiently perfect its machin- 
ery, it could commandeer everything it needed and could con- 
script men for the mines, steel mills, the munition factories and 
so forth, and compel the whole business of supporting the nation 
and waging the war to proceed on the basis of a direct exchange 
of goods and services without the use of money. While this 
would be an exceedingly clumsy way to proceed, it might clarify 
our ideas a little if we could consider what would be involved. 


Instead of having a government Treasury to receive money and 
61 


62 WAR THRIFT 


pay it out, we could, under this assumed case, abolish the Treasury — 
and greatly enlarge the compulsory powers of the War Depart- 
ment. This department could put the whole civilian population 
on a military basis and detail men for different kinds of work, 
and command men and women to do the different things which 
are necessary for the carrying on of the whole national economy, 
as it now commands soldiers and sailors to do whatever is neces- 
sary to carry on the work of the army and the navy. In that 
case we could get rid of the illusion sometimes created by the 
use of money. In such a case as this, no one would doubt that 
in order to greatly enlarge one kind of work, certain other kinds 
of work would have to be diminished in quantity. The wise 
commander would concentrate the largest number of men on the 
kind of work where the largest number was needed and the 
smallest number of men where the smallest number was needed. 
This is just as necessary in a money economy as in a money- 
less economy. 

Another objection is based on the proposition that money 
breeds money —that it is only when money circulates rapidly 
that there is wealth. This, however, puts the cart before the 
horse, or reverses the relation of cause and effect. \Vhile money 
is a labor-saving device and enables us to do business with less 
trouble than would be necessary if there were no money, that is 
literally the end of its usefulness. It neither breeds nor begets 
in any way. It is a tool by means of which we accomplish more 
than we could accomplish without it. It circulates in response 
to a need, but its circulation does not create the need — that is 
to say, it has no power either to increase or decrease the speed 
with which it moves from hand to hand or from pocket to 
pocket. It is purely passive and moves rapidly when there is 
need that it should move rapidly and slowly when there is need 
that it should move slowly. 

The argument that we should spend money freely even for 
things we do not need in order to make prosperity is precisely 
like the position of the little girl who spent her missionary money 


THE GROUNDS OF THE OPPOSITION 63 


for confectionery in order that the confectionery maker might 
have money to give to the missionary cause. Undoubtedly the 
expenditure of her dime put a dime in the hands of the con- 
fectionery dealer. Out of that dime, he might conceivably if 
he were so disposed, give a small fraction to some public cause. 
If she had given it directly, the whole dime would have gone 
to the public cause. When spent for a thing which was not 
necessary, it neither increased her own power and efficiency, 
nor could it possibly help the treasury of the public cause as 
much as it would if she had spent it herself. Similarly, if the 
private citizen, instead of buying a government bond, should 
spend $100 for some non-essential, the maker of the non-essential 
would be, to a certain extent, prospered, and might conceivably 
devote a small fraction of the $100 to the purchase of thrift 
stamps, but he could not possibly devote the whole $100 to that 
purpose because he must spend a part of it to hire men to make 
the non-essential. Hiring men to make the non-essential is in 
effect hiring them to stay out of the essential industries. Let 
us suppose that he would make a profit of $5 at the end. In 
that case he could, if he felt like it, spend $5 in the purchase of 
thrift stamps. In that case, $5 would be spent by the govern- 
ment in hiring men to do essential things, but $95 of the $100 
would be spent in hiring men to make the non-essentials. On 
the other hand, if the citizen had spent the whole $100 for a 
government bond, the whole $100 would then be available for 
hiring men to work in the essential industries. From the stand- 
point of winning the war, the country would be $95 better off 
if the citizen should spend his whole $100 for government bonds 
than it would be if, through the medium of the maker of non- 
essentials, he indirectly spent $5 for thrift stamps and $95 to hire 
somebody to cater to his luxurious tastes. 

As was pointed out in Chapter II, thrift does not consist in 
hoarding money, but in spending it for the more important 
rather than the less important things. If it is desired that money 
shall circulate, it will circulate just as rapidly under a campaign 


64. WAR THRIFT 


of thrift as under a campaign of extravagance. The only differ- 
ence will be in the channels through which it will circulate. In 
a campaign of thrift it will circulate in such ways as to stimulate 
the essential industries. In a campaign of extravagance it will 
circulate in such ways as to stimulate the non-essential indus- 
tries. In the campaign of thrift it will employ just as much 
labor and business talent as in the campaign of extravagance. 
The difference will be that under the thrift campaign it will 
employ labor and business talent in the industries which help to 
win the war; whereas in the campaign of extravagance, it will 
employ them in the industries which do not help in winning the 
war. 

Again, it is argued that if everybody should instantly begin 
economizing to the bone, it would take business a long time to 
readjust itself, and in the meantime there would be great eco- 
nomic disturbance. This argument is sound so far as it goes. 
However, there is little danger of such universal and instantane- 
ous adoption of the policy of thrift. One might with equal wis- 
dom warn a recruiting officer not to urge men too strongly to 
volunteer, lest every one should volunteer at once and over- 
crowd the offices and overwork the clerks. Such warning would 
be very flattering to the eloquence of the recruiting officer, but 
not many recruiting officers have ever been thus overwhelmed 
with volunteers. Again, one might in the same spirit warn an 
evangelist against preaching repentance too fervently, lest the 
people should, under his persuasive eloquence, rush to the front 
and overcrowd the sawdust trail. The danger is that people 
will be too slow rather than too prompt in responding to any 
such appeal. Until people show signs of economizing too much, 
there is no need to warn the advocates of thrift against the fer- 
vidness of their own preaching. 

The dawn does not break suddenly; the light does not strike 
every mind at the same instant. If every one to whom the light 
of an economic truth comes would act instantly, it would still 
take a long time to convert a whole nation, and there would still 
be dullards enough to act as a drag on the process. In addition 


THE GROUNDS OF THE OPPOSITION 65 


to this, there are enough false teachers and clever advertisers 
urging people to go on buying non-essentials to make it certain 
that more than enough will be bought. 

It can not be too often repeated that mere business activity, 
regardless of its direction, is no indication of our ability to sup- 
port the war, much less to win it. It is the direction of that 
business activity quite as much as its quantity which will de- 
termine the question. We need not be overawed by what is 
sometimes called the efficiency of the German Empire in war 
time. There is nothing mysterious or awe-inspiring about it. 
Her workmen are no more skilful than ours; her technicians are 
no better trained; her inventors are not so numerous nor so 
ingenious. She has gotten most of her inventions from other 
countries. Moreover, aside from the chemical industry, in which 
she has excelled the rest of the world, there is not a single 
large industry in which we did not excel Germany in time of 
peace. She has led in a few minor industries, but the same can 
be said of every country. In the large industries, such as agri- 
culture, iron and steel, copper, the manufacture of automobiles, 
and a number of others which ought to figure largely in military 
efficiency, we led the world in time of peace. And yet, we seem 
woefully slow in redirecting this vast industrial power toward 
the winning of the war. Up to the present time (July, 1918) 
the Germans have succeeded in massing more men on the firing 
line and in keeping them better supplied with materials than we 
and our allies have succeeded in doing. There is only one reason 
for this. The Germans are not doing anything else except make 
war. They are not dissipating their energies. They are not 
wasting their man-power on non-essentials. They have not 
adopted the slogan ‘‘ business as usual.’’ They have massed all 
their man-power, and their woman-power as well, on the war 
and the war industries and those that are absolutely essential for 
the sustenance of the people. That policy, and that alone, ac- 
counts for the fact that they have been able to support such vast 
armies and keep them so well supplied. 

If the Germans win and the Allies lose, it will be for the sole 


66 WAR THRIFT 


reason that they have concentrated their national energy on 
the war and the war industries, while we have dissipated ours 
on unnecessary luxuries for private consumption. If we win 
and the Germans lose, it will be for the sole reason that we have 
concentrated enough of our national energy on the war and the 
war industries to outnumber them on the firing line and to keep 
our soldiers better supplied with everything which they need. 
Every ounce of our national energy which we use for other pur- 
poses is just so much withdrawn from war purposes, and to that 
extent it jeopardizes the outcome of this war. Unless the gov- 
ernment adopts the policy of universal conscription of labor, the 
only way in which we can redirect our national energy is by 
redirecting the spending of our money. We must stop spend- 
ing so much of our money for things which have no connection 
with the war and begin spending more of it on things which help 
win the war. 

If one wanted to be thoroughly disloyal, it would not be neces- 
sary to make anarchistic speeches on the street corner or other 
public places, or to urge men by word of mouth not to enlist, not 
to go into the shipyards or the munition factories, and not to go 
onto the farms to help produce food. Such a procedure would 
land one in jail, and very properly. The same result, however, 
could be achieved in other ways. One can hire men to stay out 
of the shipyards, out of the munition factories and off the farms 
by hiring them to make things which are not necessary — that is, 
by spending one’s money on non-essentials. One’s motive may 
be perfectly innocent and absolutely free from disloyalty, and yet 
however pure the motive, the result is the same. Ignorance of 
economic principles is sometimes quite as destructive as dis- 
loyalty. 

Usually all people spend their money for the things for which 
they care most and deprive themselves of the things for which 
they care least. They who care more for the winning of the 
war than for the luxuries which they might purchase with their 
surplus income will quite naturally spend their money for the 
winning of the war rather than for the purchasing of these lux- 


THE GROUNDS OF THE OPPOSITION 67 


uries. But they who care more for luxuries than for the win- 
ning of the war will, with equal certainty, continue to spend their 
money for luxuries. 

When we used to read how Nero fiddled while Rome was 
burning we thought what an inhuman creature he was. Today 
the whole world is on fire. It is facing a greater disaster than 
that which threatened Rome when Nero fiddled. There are 
Neros among us who are thinking more about their own pleas- 
ure than about the present sufferings of the world or the greater 
disasters which threaten to overwhelm it. 

If, instead of fiddling himself, Nero had hired others to 
fiddle for him, the case would have been worse. He would 
have wasted not only his own time but theirs as well when all 
were needed to save the city. Whether he hired them directly 
or indirectly would have made little difference so far as the 
ultimate result was concerned. Either method would have 
wasted man-power when every foot-pound was needed to put out 
the fire. 

No one will doubt that when I buy something I am indirectly 
hiring some one to make it. If 1 buy something for my own 
pleasure or amusement I am indirectly hiring some one to please 
or amuse me. This is no better than to hire them to fiddle to 
me. No one would have blamed Nero for fiddling when there 
was nothing more important to be done. Neither could any- 
body blame me for hiring some one to please or amuse me under 
like circumstances. But when every foot-pound of man-power 
is needed to save the world from the greatest catastrophe which 
ever threatened it, I would be no better than Nero if I insisted on 
hiring men to make frills and luxuries for my own pleasure or 
amusement. 

Any one who, in these days of impending doom, buys any- 
thing which he does not need for his own health, strength, or 
efficiency in the production of essentials is hiring some one to 
do something which is unnecessary. He is hiring some one to 
stay out of the essential industries. He is competing with the 


68 WAR THRIFT 


government for materials and man-power which it needs to win 
the war and preserve the liberties of mankind. 

Nero fiddled because he cared more for his own amusement 
than for the salvation of the city. He cared more for his own 
amusement because he was that kind of a man. Similarly, if 
we buy non-essentials in these times, it will be because we care 
more for the personal gratification which they bring than for the 
great principles for which the civilized world is fighting. If we 
care more for these personal gratifications it will be because we 
are that kind of people. \WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE WE? 

September, 1918. 


Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 


DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY 
JOHN BATES CLARK, DIRECTOR 


PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC STUDIES OF THE WAR 


EDITED BY 


DAVID KINLEY 


Professor of Political Economy, University of Illinois 
Member of Committee of Research of the Endowment 


Noss 


GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR 
BUSINESS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND 
THE UNITED STATES 


BY 


THOMAS NIXON CARVER 


Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University 


(Ua 


NEW YORK 


OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 


AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 WEST 32np STREET 
LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE AND BOMBAY 


1919 


: 1 ea © 

- 2. 4 
vy) sew o 

i 

. 
* = 
‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
: ‘ 
a 


COPYRIGHT 1919 
BY THE 

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL 

2 JacKSON PLACE, WasuincTon> DCs 


PUBLISHERS PRINTING COMPANY, NEW YORK 
i 
i 
i 
rs . 
a te ee Me 
4 , Se ieee 
EEE jo Tei 


EDITOR’S PREFACE 


This study on the “Government Control of the Liquor Traffic” 
was begun by Dr. Carver with the expectation that the history of 
the experience of Great Britain would be useful to our own 
people during the war. But events have moved so rapidly that 
this purpose has been defeated. 

The original motive for control of the liquor traffic as a war 
measure was the conservation of food materials. The prohibi- 
tion movement had made great strides in this country for other 
reasons than conservation of food, but the moyement was greatly 
accelerated by this later need. Moreover, the restriction on the 
consumption of liquor abroad had shown such good results in 
improved health, morale and economic conditions that the argu- 
ment for prohibition was strengthened. It is not altogether 
unlikely that the adoption of our own constitutional amendment 
on this matter would have been more difficult, or, at any rate, 
longer delayed, but for the patriotic feeling that conservation 
was necessary. 

It is of little practical advantage to discuss the causes of a 
movement and its underlying philosophy, after the event. How- 
ever, it has’ been made very clear, by the experience of every 
country in the war, that the manufacture of malt and spirituous 
liquors has been a heavy drain on the national strength, not only 
by the divergence of food materials to this manufacture but by 
the demoralization of large numbers of men and women. The 
hastening of whatever good one believes to inhere in the prohi- 
bition of the consumption of these liquors is, therefore, to be 
regarded by those who hold that view as an incidental benefit 
of the war. 


iti 


iv EDITOR’S PREFACE 


Some thoughtful students of public affairs have doubts of the 
political wisdom of the method adopted by our own people to 
stop the manufacture and consumption of liquor. A constitu- 
tional amendment which is in its character virtually a piece of 
special legislation is a somewhat dangerous method, politically, 
in a democratic republic. The Constitution is a declaration of 
fundamental principles on the basis of which laws rest. The 
prohibitory amendment is not a declaration of principle, but 
rather itself a legislative enactment. It is not a sufficient reply 
to say that the purpose and result of the amendment are both 
good, for the point is that if the process of amending the Consti- 
tution can be utilized to enact a law that is regarded as generally 
good, it can be utilized also for purposes that are sinister; and 
if those purposes are accomplished their evil influence will be 
prolonged because of the slowness of the process of amending 
the Constitution. But the mass of men pay little attention to 
political principles involved in a movement whose purposes they 
are determined to attain. In other words, we seldom think 
about, and still more seldom perceive, the unintended conse- 
quences involved: in particular legislation. In this case, such 
experience as the world has had goes very clearly to show that 
human efficiency is increased by the curtailment of liquor con- 
sumption and that the wiping out of the evils of liquor traffic 
means a tremendous social improvement in many directions. 
As to the political consequences of our own method of securing 
this gain only experience can satisfy us. 

Needless to say, Professor Carver has handled this subject 
with his usual skill and lucidity. 

: Davip KINLEY, 
Editor. 


Urbana, Illinois, 
April 30, 1919. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
Introduction . - 3 
Part I—GreaT BRITAIN 
CHAPTER 

I. The Drink Situation at the Beginning of the War. . 17 
Meee Attitude .of the: Public spawn uae yee 8 3 AD 

III. What Was Done by the Government—The Repression 
@epO pimikennesays {N27 an ak ee ee te eae oe ce en Pe NISL OS, 

IV. What Was Done by the Government—The Conserva- 
tien, ol. Rood: Materials oi) nts eee ee] 
Of TRGSO NGS SAS aie a OCs Caveaiees oe nuee ws CIE adel iy ial BT, 


Part IJ—TuHe UNITED STATES 


VI. Why America Tends Toward Prohibition Rather than 


Contre pee. |) helt aes eile mee) eters es tate LS 

wil.) he Repression of Drunkenmess -.. =. . 4. +. 152 
VIII. The Conservation of Food Materials . . . . . 166 
IX. The Agitation for Permanent Prohibition . . . . 176 

Pm G@onciisions f/f Gad hl. Wie aoe gemiament aimennt) espe oi Le 

© LIne 1(s2o a A Rea nes ecto eee TASS net eB boty 


“wat 
Peet ey | 
‘ 2 


GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR 
BUSINESS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND 
THE UNITED STATES 


INTRODUCTION 


“Make hay before the sun shines” seems to be the motto of 
all war time profiteers, whether in the field of business, of poli- 
tics, of literature or of social reform. Decent reformers, how- 
‘ever, by a tacit understanding, all declared a truce when the war 
came on. They felt that, however meritorious their reforms 
might be, it would be criminal in war time to dissipate their 
own energy, or distract that of other people, from the great 
task of winning the war. They saw that this would be the 
result of agitating any controverted questions which did not 
contribute directly to military victory. 

Temperance reform, however, is unique among reforms in 
at least two respects. In the first place, its active promoters 
have nothing to gain from its success. In the second place, it 
has a very direct bearing on the conservation of man power and 
of food, and on the chances of military victory. 

The latter is by far the most important factor in the increase 
of public interest in the drink question in war time. Even 
though temperance reformers have nothing to gain from the 
success of their reform, and could not be called political or 
social profiteers, nevertheless temperance reform is a contro- 
verted question and its continued agitation in war time would 
dissipate energy which is vitally needed for the prosecution of 
the war. But it did not require a temperance reformer to see 
that drunkenness on a large scale in war time, especially among 
munition workers, train men and sailors, to say nothing of 
soldiers and officers, constituted a real menace. As a matter 
of fact, it was not the chronic temperance reformer who did 
most to arouse public sentiment in all the warring countries 

3 


+ GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


to the dangers of the drink evil in war time. The military and 
naval authorities who were in positions of terrific responsibility, 
in whose keeping rested the lives of millions of people, would 
have been stupid indeed if they had not seen the danger and 
warned their people against it. Rulers and law makers who 
stood as the spokesmen of masses of people would have been 
dumb mouthpieces indeed if they had not voiced the general 
alarm over the danger of drunkenness on the part of men upon 
whom the armies and the people depended for accurate and 
efficient work. 

Whatever may have been said in extenuation of drunkenness 
in times of peace, there could be no reasonable doubt that in 
time of war it was a source of grave danger. Overstimula- 
tion undoubtedly tends temporarily to destroy reliability, and 
reliability in a time of crisis is of the utmost importance. In 
the armies it is absolutely essential that officers should be able 
to rely upon their men and the men upon their officers and upon 
one another. But if an officer is drunk or liable to be drunk, 
men can not rely upon him or have confidence in him. Neither 
can men rely upon their comrades who are liable to be drunk. 

But this dependableness is essential not only among the fight- 
ing men, but throughout the whole nation. The soldiers niust 
be able to rely upon the munition makers and the munition | 
makers upon one another. One drunk man in a munition plant 
might endanger the lives of thousands of workers, besides leay- 
ing the soldiers inadequately supplied. And so on, throughout 
the whole nation in war time, we are in a state of dependence 
upon one another, but there can be no dependence where there 
is no dependableness or reliability. Without dependableness or 
reliability, our whole military system crumbles into a mass of 
individuals without coherence, organization, or team work. 

Even in time of peace, in our interlocking civilization, there 
is no vice worse than drunkenness. Whatever may have been 
true in a simple, unorganized rural life, it is now true that we 
are very much dependent upon one another. The interdepend- 
ence of parts is a characteristic of every highly civilized society 


INTRODUCTION 5 


as it is of every highly developed organism and of every highly 
efficient machine. But there can be no interdependence of parts, 
and hence no high civilization, where there is no dependableness. 
Nothing so quickly or so effectively destroys dependableness as 
overstimulation. 

It was the question of drunkenness rather than the question 
of drink per se which first aroused public interest in drink con- 
trol as a war measure. In the early stages of the war, public 
efforts were directed primarily toward the control of. drunken- 
ness rather than toward the elimination of drink; but the two 
questions could not be kept separate. Some control of drink 
seemed absolutely necessary to any control whatever over drunk- 
enness. Something might be said, of course, on academic 
grounds, in favor of dealing so severely with every case of 
drunkenness as either to reform or to exterminate all drunkards. 
By this method the question of drunkenness could be kept apart 
from the question of drink. But no civilized country could be 
induced to deal so harshly and implacably with drunkenness as 
that, even in time of peace, much less in time of war, when every 
ounce of man power is needed. The only other possibility seems 
to be to reduce the temptations and the opportunities for ex- 
cessive drinking. This requires some control of the drink trade, 
and this mixes the two questions. There does not seem to be 
any other practicable way of eliminating the menace of drunk- 
enness. Certainly there was no other way which would bring 
results quickly enough to meet the exigencies of a life and death 
struggle. 

Even the argument that the freedom to drink, together with 
the implacable punishment of drunkenness, may, when combined, 
do the beneficent work of the fool killer loses much of its force 
in war time. The fool killer does its work slowly and can only 
rid the country of fools after several generations of continued 
operation. A great war, however, presents a crisis in the imme- 
diate present which will not wait. Drunkenness must be stopped 
promptly and not by the slow process of natural selection; other- 
wise the country may suffer an irreparable disaster. This neces- 


6 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


sarily means a policy of preventing men from getting drunk 
rather than a policy of reforming or exterminating drunkards. 
Stoppage at the source necessitates dealing with the question of 
drink and the question of drunkenness as parts of the same 
policy. 

That drunkenness is one of the worst and most dangerous, 
if not the worst and most dangerous, of all vices, may be dis- 
puted by sentimental moralists, but it is not likely to be disputed 
by any one who is in the habit of thinking about such things in 
concrete terms. If such a person were given his choice between 
serving as a soldier under an officer who was addicted to drunk- 
enness and under one who was addicted to any other vice, he 
would probably not choose to serve under the drunkard. It 
would be a gruesome story, if it could be written, which would 
reveal how many blunders, like that which sent the Light Bri- 
gade into the Valley of Death, were caused by the excessive 
use of alcohol on the part of some officer. If one who professes 
to believe that there are worse vices than drunkenness were 
given his choice between traveling on a ship in the submarine 
zone under a captain who was in the habit of excessive drink- 
ing and under a captain who was guilty of any other vice what- 
soever, he would probably not choose the heavy drinking captain. 
But every member of the crew of a ship in the submarine zone 
is also in a position of great responsibility, and a vice which 
destroys his dependableness is more dangerous than any other 
vice. 

Even in civil life and in times of peace, in our interlocking 
civilization, we should make similar choices if faced with similar 
alternatives. If given our choice between having abroad in the 
community locomotive engineers, drug clerks, chauffeurs, phy- 
sicians, or even bank cashiers who were addicted to drunken- 
ness, and having men in similarly responsible positions who were 
addicted to any other vice, we should probably, with considera- 
ble unanimity, decide against having drunkards in these posi- 
tions. In war time, especially, drunkenness is intolerable in 
any one. The general appreciation of this fact has stirred all 


INTRODUCTION 7 


the warring countries to special efforts for the repression of 
drunkenness. 

In several of the warring countries the food situation became 
acute either at the beginning of the war or soon after. In these 
cases the question of food conservation rivaled in importance 
that of the conservation of human energy. Accordingly, some re- 
strictions upon the use of food materials in the manufacture of 
potable alcohol became necessary. In most cases, however, the 
two motives were mixed. It is not always easy to tell whether the 
desire to conserve food materials through the restriction of brew- 
ing and distilling was the dominant motive. Austria-Hungary 
in the first year of the war limited the hours of sale on ordinary 
days from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Sundays and holidays shops 
in which liquors were sold were closed.’ 

In Germany various restrictions and prohibitions were placed 
upon the sale of spirituous liquors to soldiers in special localities. 
The following is a sample: 


Reichsanzeiger No. 39, February 16, 1915.2 

The General commanding in the Marks has issued the following notice: 

The numerous warnings and notices issued by the authorities and the 
press not having had the necessary results, I hereby ordain by virtue of 
paragraph 9b of the law concerning a state of siege dated June 4, 1851, for 
the district and the town of Berlin and the province of Brandenburg: 

It is forbidden for keepers of licensed houses to serve alcohol in the form 
of spirits, liqueurs, rum, arrak, cognac or drinks prepared from them to sol- 
diers of all ranks in uniform, either in person or through the medium of 

- others. 

This ordinance shall enter into force on Friday, February 19, 1915. 

Contraventions will be punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceed- 
ing one year or by the closure of the establishment. 

The Commander in Chief of the Marken, 
Von KESSEL. 


On March 26, 1915, the Federal Council empowered the local 
authorities to restrict or prohibit the sale of spirits. 


1See Intoxicating Liquors (Restrictions in Foreign Countries during the 
War). Correspondence Relative to the Measures Taken in Certain Foreign 
Countries for the Restrictions of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors Since the 
Outbreak of the War. London, 1915. Page 3. 


2 Tbid., page 5. 


8 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


NOTIFICATION IN REGARD TO THE SUPPLY AND SALE OF 
SPIRITS AND ALCOHOL (SPIRITUS) OF MARCH 26, 1915+ 


In view of Section 3 of the law of 4th August, 1914, empowering the 
Federal Council to adopt economic measures, the Federal Council have issued 
the following decree: 

a 

The Provincial Authorities (Landeszentralbehorde) or the authorities 
indicated by them may prohibit, either wholly or partially, or restrict, the 
supply and sale of spirits or alcohol (“‘spiritus”) ; they may also issue regu- 
lations in regard to the size and nature of casks and bottles used for such 
supply and sale, and fix minimum prices. 


2: 


Places used exclusively for the supply and sale of spirits and alcohol 
(“spiritus”) must be kept shut during the periods within which supply and 
salé is prohibited under Section 1. Places which’ are principally used for 
such supply and sale may be closed by order of the police authorities during 
the prohibited period. 

. 3. 

Any person acting in contravention of the provision contained in Section 
2, sentence 1, or of regulations enacted in virtue of Section 1, sentence 2, 
will be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or with a fine 
not exceeding 10,000 marks. 

4. 

Should owners or managers of places for such supply and sale prove 
unreliable in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by this 
decree and the regulations issued in connection therewith, the police author- 
ities may close the business and seize the stocks. 


5. 


Appeal may be made against orders issued by the Police’ Authorities | 
(Sections 2 and 4), but such appeal has no suspensory action. The super- 
vising authorities decide on the appeal. 


> 6 
The provincial authorities decide as to who are to be regarded as police 
authorities in the sense of this decree. 


ds 
This decree comes into force on the day of its promulgation. The Im- 
perial Chancellor decides when it shall cease to have effect. 
The Representative of the Imperial Chancellor, 
Berlin, 26th March, 1915. DELBRUCK. 


1Jntoxicating Liquors (Restrictions, etc.) cited above, page 6. 


INTRODUCTION 9 


On March 31 the Federal Council placed very drastic restric- 
tions upon the production of spirituous liquors, forbidding any 
one to produce brandy who was not in the business during the 
financial year 1913-14, and even the latter were forbidden to 
put on the market in any month more than 2 per cent of the 
quantity for which they paid duty during the year 1913-14. 


NOTIFICATION RELATIVE TO THE RESTRICTION OF THE 
PRODUCTION OF BRANDY 
March 31, 1915.1 
By virtue of Section 3 of the law of August 4, 1914, as to the authority 
of the Federal Council to adopt economic measures (Imperial Law Gazette, 
page 327), the Council has issued the following decree: 


1. 


From April 2, 1915, until further notice, no raw brandy “may be put on 
the market after payment of the consumption of spirits duty. 


2. 


The Imperial Chancellor is empowered to grant anew, from May 1, 1915, 
permission to place raw brandy on the market on payment of the consump- 
tion of spirits duty. 

In that case only those persons may put raw brandy on the market who 
were engaged in that trade in the financial year 1913-14 and, according to 
the Imperial Chancellor’s decision, this may be done each month up to 2 
per cent of the quantity for which they paid duty in the financial year 
1913-14. 

5 

The brandy which has been placed in store and there diluted with water 
subsequently to April 1, 1915, or purified by filtration through charcoal 
(Brandy Stores Ordinance, Section 19) is assimilated to raw brandy of Sec- 
tions 1 and 2. 

Reception of goods in a store in accordance with the provisions of Sec- 
tion 36 of the Brandy Stores Ordinance is made equivalent to placing them 
on the market after payment of the duties on the consumption of spirits 
(Sections 1 and 2). 

4. 

The Imperial Chancellor issues the regulations with regard to the exe- 

cution of the law. He may authorize exceptions. 


5; 


Anyone who wilfully violates the prescriptions of Sections 1, 2, Par. 2, 
and of Section 3, is punished with imprisonment up to six months or by a 


1[ntoxicating Liquors, page 7. 


10 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


fine up to fifteen thousand marks (Mks. 15,000). Anyone who does so 
through negligence is punished by a fine up to three thousand marks (Mks. 
3,000.) 

Anyone acting in contravention of the regulations with regard to the 
execution of the law that are issued by the Imperial Chancellor is punished 
by a fine up to one hundred and fifty marks (Mks. 150) or by arrest. 


6. 


This decree does not apply to brandy which is produced in distilleries of 
the privileged’ class or to brandy made in other distilleries from the ‘sub- 
stances named in Section 12 of the law relating to the duty on brandy of 
July 15, 1909. (Imperial Law Gazette, p. 661.) 


a: 


Section 5 of the ordinance comes into force on April 6, 1916; the re- 
mainder comes into force on the day of publication. The Imperial Chan- 
cellor decides the date on which it ceases to be in force. 

The Imperial Chancellor's Deputy, 

Berlin, March 31, 1915. DELBRUCK. 


The above law was supplemented on April 16 by a decree 
specifying the persons to whom, and the purposes for which, 
spirits could be sold. 


REGULATIONS FOR PUTTING INTO EFFECT THE PROCLA- 
MATION OF THE 31ST MARCH, 1915, RESPECTING THE 
RESTRICTION OF THE PRODUCTION OF SPIRITUOUS 
LIQUORS 1? 


In pursuance of Section 4 of the proclamation of the 31st March, 1915, 
respecting the restriction of the production of spirituous liquors I prescribe: 

1. Spirits in the state in which they leave the distillery or refinery are to 
be regarded as raw spirits. 

2. (1) In April, 1915, raw spirits may be supplied on payment of the excise 
duty or on production of Certificate II, if the spirits are intended 
for use in— : 

(a) Hospitals, maternity homes and similar institutions for cura- 
tive purposes. 

(b) Research laboratories. 

(c) Factories for the preparation of medicaments. 

(d) Dispensaries for use in chemists’ businesses. 

(e) Scent and cosmetic factories. 

(f) Essence factories for the preparation of extracts from vege- 
tables, etc., for teetotal beverages. 


1 Reichs-Gesetzblatt, page 208. 


INTRODUCTION 11 


(2) It is prohibited to use spirits released for taxation in pursuance of 


Paragraph 1 for other than the purposes stated, and in particular 
to supply in a raw state or to prepare alcoholic beverages and spirits. 
Chemists may, however, supply raw spirits to the institutions, labo- 
ratories and factories enumerated under (a) to (c) in Paragraph 
1, and also in small quantities to doctors, denfi&ts, veterinary sur- 
geons, and midwives, or on the written instructions of doctors, 
dentists, and veterinary surgeons. 


3. (1) In the cases mentioned in Section 2 the person in charge of the 


(2) 


(3) 


establishment for which the alcohol is intended [Section 2, Para- 
graph 1 (a) to (f)] has to notify the inland revenue authorities 
concerned, and state: 

(a) The quantity on which it is desired to pay duty. 

(b) The purpose for which the spirits are to be used. 

(c) That the consumer is aware that the use of the spirits for 
purposes other than those stated under (b) is prohibited. 

(d) Give an exact description of the establishment where the 
spirits are to be used (name or firm, name of the person in 
charge, place, street, and number of the house). 

(e) Furnish the signature of the manager, corroboration of 
which by the local police authorities may be demanded by 
revenue officials. 

Scent and cosmetic factories may not pay duty in April, 1915, on 
more than one-twelith of the quantity on which duty was paid in 
the year 1913-14. 

The establishments specified under (f) in Section 2, Paragraph 1, 
may only pay duty on the amount of their monthly requirements. 
They must send in their application in duplicate, and one copy will 
be immediately sent by the revenue authorities after payment of 
the duty to the revenue authorities in the district in which the 
establishment is situated. These establishments are bound to re- 
cord, in a special book, the purchase of alcohol for this purpose, 
the use made of the alcohol, the production and sale of essences 
for teetotal beverages. They are further bound to- show the book 
at any time to the proper revenue or police authorities and to admit 
them to their premises. 


4. For May, 1915, and the following months, duty may be paid on raw 


spirits for the purposes specified under (a) to (f) in Paragraph 1 of Section 
2, to the 
the quantities on which duty may be paid in accordance with Section 2 of 
the proclamation respecting the restriction of the production of spirits; duty 
may only be paid by factories for the preparation of essences for teetotal 
beverages [Section 2, Paragraph 1, (£)] if the authorities in the district in 
which the factory is situated consider that adequate control over the use of 
the alcohol exists. 


extent and under the conditions prescribed, without deduction of 


For the Imperial Chancellor, 


Berlin, the 15th April, 1915. Kautz. 


12 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


In Russia, immediately following the order for the mobiliza- 
tion of the land and. sea forces of the Empire, all wine, beer and 
vodka shops were closed and the sale of all intoxicants was for- 
bidden except in first class restaurants and hotels, by order of the 
Grand Duke Nicholas, commander in chief of the army. This 
order was to continue until the completion of mobilization, but 
subsequent orders continued its operation. On August 25, 1914, 
the Council of Ministers decided to continue the prohibition of 
the sale of beer and porter until October 1. On August 27 the 
Admiralty Council abolished the custom of treating sailors to a 
cup of vodka on various occasions. 

Vodka, however, presented the most serious problem. It is 
not only atrociously strong, and therefore productive of drunken- 
ness, but it had been a government monopoly. This monopoly 
was originally established as a measure of control in order to 
curtail excessive consumption, but it had become a source of con- 
siderable revenue to the government. From the point of view 
of a finance minister who saw no further than the next ruble of 
revenue, the financial motive for the continuation of the sale of 
vodka was very strong. However, it did not take a great deal 
of intelligence to see that it was a penny-wise and pound-foolish 
policy for the government to derive money from a source which 
depleted the source of all wealth by destroying the productive 
power of the people. Accordingly, on September 3/16, 1914, 
the Council of Ministers announced that His Imperial Majesty 
had decided to prohibit the sale of spirits and vodka until the 
end of the war. About the first of October, in response to 
numerous appeals, it was decided to prohibit forever the. sale of 
spirituous liquors. 

These rules, of course, did not apply to malt liquor and wines. 
In October the Council of Ministers empowered local governing 
bodies to petition for a complete prohibition of the sale of all 
alcoholic beverages within the limits of their jurisdiction.” When 
such a petition is presented the local excise officials and the rep- 


1[ntoxicating Liquors (Restrictions, etc.) cited above, page 13. 
2Tbid., page 14 


INTRODUCTION 13 


resentatives of the central government must, within three months, 
stop the sale of all intoxicants in the district in question. This 
privilege was made use of by many local governments. Petro- 
grad restricted the sale of beer and wine to 49 first class hotels 
and restaurants, and even in these places only permitted these 
liquors to be served with meals. On December 22 the City Coun- 
cil of Moscow adopted complete prohibition of all intoxicants. 

That all these measures for the restriction or suppression of 
the sale of intoxicants produced a profound effect there is no 
room for doubt. Naturally there was some difficulty in the com- 
plete enforcement of the rules. Moonshining increased for a 
time, especially in the form of the redistillation of denatured 
alcohol and of commercial mixtures, such as shellac, containing 
otherwise potable alcohol. But as to the effect on the sum total 
of drunkenness, no reputable witness has ever denied or ques- 
tioned that there was a noticeable diminution. Reliable statistics, 
however, which alone would enable us to measure the extent 
to which drunkenness was diminished, are unfortunately not 
available. 

To what extent the Russian debacle has been due to the ab- 
sence of her accustomed stimulant it is impossible to say. Doubt- 
less the apostles of Bolshevism would contend that it was only 
after the proletarians had grown sober that they could be brought 
to join the revolution; that so long as they were kept drunk they 
could not be reached by the appeals of the revolutionists. On 
the other hand, it is an open question as to how far the excesses 
of the Bolshevik régime are due to the resentment of the besotted 
masses against restrictions that kept them unwillingly sober. 
According to all reports, the revolution was accompanied, not by 
sobriety, but by orgies of drunkenness. The desire to remain 
sober could scarcely have been one of the dominating motives 
driving them to the general demoralization of the Lenine-Trotsky 
surrender to German influence. It looks, on the surface, as 
though the desire to get drunk was a more potent motive. Some 
weight is also given to the opinion, frequently expressed in recent 
years, that drunkenness is only in part the product of alcohol; 


14 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


that it is in part the product of nervous instability, and that 
unstable natures will run to excesses in one way if not in an- 
other; and that, if. deprived of the opportunity for alcoholic 
excesses, they will break out in other ways and resort to worse 
excesses, such as Bolshevism. On this phase of the question 
much more evidence is needed, and a more prolonged study is 
required than can now be given to it. 


CHAPTER I 
The Drink Situation at the Beginning of the War 


The experience of the United Kingdom with respect to liquor 
control in war time is of peculiar-interest to Americans. That 
experience is of more practical importance to us than that of any 
other country. Not only our language, but also our literature, 
as well as our laws, our political ideals and institutions, and our 
moral and social habits are all derived from the same source as 
theirs. For these reasons, our moral, social and political reac- 
tions are likely to resemble theirs and theirs to resemble ours, 
more closely than those of nations speaking different languages 
and having different moral, social and political traditions. The 
developments of popular opinion and the actions taken by the 
government are likely to follow the same rule. 

They were at war nearly three years before we entered it, and 
the problems of war economy became acute with them long 
before they did with us. Therefore we are in a position to learn 
from their experience rather than in a position to teach them 
by ours. It is therefore of the greatest importance that we study 
their experience. 

They had reason to feel from the very first, as we have not 
begun to feel even yet, that the enemy was at their gates and 
that they were fighting for their very national existence. They 
would have been a very unusual people, when facing such a 
crisis, if they had not taken account of their resources in man 
power and materials, and eliminated everything that in any way 
depleted those resources. If, in facing what might have been their 
last fight, they had not taken active measures to conserve every re- 
source which might aid in the winning of the war, and to prevent 
every form of waste which might decrease their fighting power, 
they would not have shown that capacity for self-discipline upon 

17 


18 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


which, alone, the salvation of democracy depends. The world 
has always been ruled by disciplined nations. Undiscipline has 
always given way before discipline with the regularity of a law 
of nature. But self-discipline is the only kind of discipline pos-. 
sible to a free people under a liberal government. Unless, there- 
fore, free peoples will discipline themselves and do voluntarily 
everything which is necessary to make them strong, they can not 
hope to retain their freedom. They must expect either to be 
exterminated or to be disciplined from above by a despotic 


5 aie 
y No one could seriously consider the question of drink in Great 
/ Britain without concluding that there was a great source of 
waste both of materials and of man power. In the midst of all 
the controversies over the question, and of all the uncertainties 
with which it is surrounded, two facts at least are certain and 
beyond controversy. One is that starch and sugar are used in 
the production of alcohol. The other is that large numbers of 
people get drunk on alcohol. Beyond these two facts there are 
others which are practically certain; but there are none upon 
which there is absolute unanimity of opinion or which will not 
be challenged by some one. The further we proceed from these 
facts, the less certainty and the less unanimity there is. 

It is practically certain, and almost undisputed, that the starch 
and sugar used up in the manufacture of alcohol have more food 
value than the alcohol which is made from them. It is also prac- 
tically certain and almost undisputed that a man is, on the aver- 
age, and for the ordinary kinds of productive work, less efficient 
when he is drunk than when he is sober. If these two facts are 
admitted, it must necessarily be admitted that there is some waste 
involved in the manufacture and consumption of alcoholic drinks, 
when carried on on a large scale, and when the court records 
show large numbers of convictions for drunkenness. 

In times of peace and prosperity a nation might conceivably 
afford both forms of waste, as it does many others. Even the 
adornments and embellishments of life, much, even, that goes 
under the name of “culture,” and upon which a nation may pride 


GREAT BRITAIN 19 


itself in times of prosperity, may have to be sacrificed as wasteful 
in time of war when the life of the nation is at stake. Drunken- 
ness could scarcely be called an adornment of life, and there 
is nothing in it upon which a nation could take pride, even in 
times of greatest prosperity. It could scarcely be defended on 
any ground in time of war, when every ounce of national energy 
is needed for national defense. 

As to the quantity of waste in food materials and man power, 
there are comparatively few recorded or authenticated facts upon 
which to base a calculation. That there is some waste is a cer- 
tainty. Just how great that waste is, is largely a matter of cal- 
culation, based upon the few recorded and authenticated facts, 
and supplemented by the observation and experience of those 
deemed most competent to judge. <—_— 

Among the recorded and authenticated facts may be included 
figures as to the quantities of liquor produced, imported and 
exported. From these it is not difficult to calculate the quantities 
retained for home consumption and the per capita consumption. 

During the year ending March 31, 1914—that is, the last year 
unaffected by war conditions—the following quantities of spirits, 
malt liquors, and wines were produced, imported, exported, and 
consumed in the United Kingdom:' 

Spirits, Malt liquors, Wines, 


Proof gallons gallons gallons 
Proglneuoiie mo vosganevarpobasopetods 28,785,496 1,291,114,476 
Nirmponteds oss cutis oaclalecelee sass 5,806,682 2,687,940 11,675,731 
Mlb teulig areas. mere ictents nes lays! stairs eke 34,592,178 1,293,802,416 
EX MORECHEI ps eysicis cues claps cise ajerns cies s 1,995,752 24,716,916 38,415 
Retained for consumption.......... 32,596,426 1,269,085.500 *11,637,316 
IPG GADIL AR DESO NBR OMEN a aeninem ere oc 71 27.51 .245 


*Exclusive of 734 gallons delivered free of duty from bonded warehouses 
for the use of Ambassadors etc. 


Again; we have official figures as to the materials used in the 
manufacture of alcoholic liquors in the United Kingdom at the 
beginning of the war. 


1See Fifth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and 
Excise. (For the year ended 31st March, 1914.) Vol. XVII, Tables 12, 14, 


33, 34 and 41. 


20 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 
The following materials were used in the manufacture of 
spirits and malt liquors: 


Materials:1 Estimated Quantities Used in Distilleries in Year Ending 
September 30, 1913 


Quarters Pounds 
Malt) synicc cbt tare ceed cea ere Scere ee ee 1,053,608 505,731,840 
Gra tir. Sac Naser oe each: Se ORR ee ee 1,198,730 575,390,400 
: Cwt. 
Rice? yn Sn Ge Ae hae oad arene Sa aes eee ane 3,780 . 423,360 
Molasses) iischacas cos cinta ater eee ee oe Cee 1,204,223: ee 
Other: Fecal ia lats eer havclelole eae ee ee eke cae 20,713. eee 


Materials :2 Estimated Quantities Used for Beer in Year Ending 
September 30, 1913 


Bushels Pounds 
ONE | re CN a a peers ca OE aS iy Rees yn he, 52,287,637 1,777,779,658 
Unmaltedi corn iJ aoc hoy eee eee ete 91,068 4,371,264 
Cwts. 
Rice, rice grits, flaked rice, maize, and other simi- 
lar Preparavions yay). ls) tae eee eae Ree 1,611,357 180,471,984 
Sugar, including its equivalents, syrups, glucose, 
and: SAccharin. oesimcoeceis eect eae 3,279,814 367,339,168 
Pounds 
MOPS esiavesbe Yocare,sietela ave eseheaciats eave aterm eteaerereveke ornate atte 62,911,376). ae 
EOD NH Stibstitutes a's Soni aaaase a een ee er eee 18,885... - ee 


Since no wine is produced in England, there can not be said 
to be any waste of food materials within the country by reason 
of the wine industry. Something must, of course, be sent out 
of the country in the purchase of wine from other countries, but 
it need not necessarily be food. Since it was imported, however, 
either from her allies or from neutral countries, it would not 
be improper, if it could be done, to calculate the amount of food 
value used in making the wine that was imported in the United 
Kingdom. However, this would be a very difficult calculation to 
make, because no one could say specifically how much of the 
grape growing industry of the wine producing countries would 
be devoted to the production of food if the sale or exportation 
of wine were prohibited. In all probability, many of the vine- 

1 From Fifth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs and 


Excise. (For the year ended 3lst March, 1914.) Vol. XVII, page 28. 
2 Tbid., 1914: XVII, page 34. 


GREAT BRITAIN 21 


yards would be destroyed and the land turned over to other uses. 
How much this would affect the food supply of the neutral or 
Allied countries could only be estimated in the most general 
terms. Besides, it is by no means certain that England would 
get any more food if she stopped importing wine. 

Some idea of the magnitude of the business of selling, as dis- 
tinct from the business of manufacturing, may be gained from 
the following table, which gives the number of retail licenses for 
the sale of liquor: 


Annual Retail Licenses in Year Ending March 31, 19141 


On Off 
premises premises 
SBUEES ies ole ele «cise whet se\c ad ws.s's eererap See aol eee as 84,901 12,405 
MecimeeiGer, sand PELLY acca. s/o<cs Seeks sae eeinee 26,811 22,150 
SRTCIMANGUDCTLY. oc loca sss clenched tones Cooke 20 45 
Wines and sweets (alcoholic) .................... 2,634 14,791 
SSMICEESENETICONOUE) oes cictaccals doleeastemore eee att oe 145 274 
LOGS cao) Seeaset PBB See hit a Shoe SOR aoe 393 ae 
CEES cn 2 ee ee eS eee eeees seers tors 551 
TREES) PE Soc ee ee omey: Sener PRESE 115,455 49.665 


The statistics of drunkenness are more significant, at least so 
far as their bearing on the waste of man power is concerned, than 
the statistics of production, consumption, or sale. It is obvious 
that in every case of conviction for drunkenness some of the 
time of the convicted person has been subtracted from his regu- 
lar occupation, to say nothing of his impaired efficiency. For 
every case of conviction, however, there must obviously be a 
good many cases of impaired efficiency in which the individual 
affected has not reached that stage of drunkenness which calls 
for the attention of the police and the courts. 


Drunkenness: Convictions in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, 19122 


England and Wales....... 145,976. Judicial Statistics, page 64. 

SCOPANICH sc ccis sere acne oes 28,971. Judicial Statistics, page 65. 

TINGLE IT Cae i Sit en pale 59,624. Judicial Statistics, page 44. 
MOEN AS sh Qosen ase cee 234,571. 


1From Fifth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Customs and 
Excise. (For the year ended 31st March, 1914.) Pages 61 and 62. 
2From Parliamentary Papers, 1914, C. 


22 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Most of the calculations as to the amount of waste must be 
based upon these official figures, which may be taken as authentic. 

There are at least three conspicuous forms of waste which can 
be counted separately, without overlapping and without counting 
any item more than once. First, the food materials used up in 
the production of alcoholic liquor; second, the property and the 
man power used in dispensing the liquor to the drinking public 
after it is produced; and, third, the impaired efficiency of those 
guilty of overindulgence. Certain minor items of waste might 
also be counted in. First, the manufactured product, especially 
when it is in the form of beer, is very bulky and requires more 
space on freight cars and ships'than the food materials would 
have required had the grain, sugar, and molasses been made into 
food instead of beer. This excess—that is, the amount by which 
beer transported on freight cars or ships exceeds in bulk the food 
materials which might have been manufactured—obviously 
places an added burden on the transportation system when it is 
already overburdened. Second, the extra time or the extra 
man power required in policing, and in the judicial procedure 
which tries and convicts cases of drunkenness should also be 
taken into account in a complete inventory of the wastes which 
result from a lavish consumption of alcoholic liquors. That is 
to say, if, through the elimination of drunkenness, the police 
force could be cut down and also the personnel of the courts, 
just so much man power would be saved for other purposes. 

It would not be proper to count the waste of food materials 
and also to count as wasted the man power used in manufactur- 
ing alcoholic drink. To make the grain into food would prob- 
ably require as much man power as is required in making it into 
drink. But the food material itself is a positive loss. 

The exact extent to which food is wasted in the manufacture 
of alcoholic drinks is not easy to determine. That there is some 
destruction is quite certain, but how to measure it is a difficult 
question. That there is some destruction is shown by the fact 
that alcohol is made from starch and sugar and that the alcohol 
thus made has less food value than the starch or sugar from 


GREAT BRITAIN 23 


which it was made. That starch and sugar are foods is a demon- 
strable fact, and their food values are ascertainable with some 
approximation to accuracy. If it were clearly demonstrated that 
alcohol is also a food in a practical economic sense there would 
be some compensation for the destruction of sugar and starch in 
its manufacture. If its food value were ascertainable, the loss 
could then be calculated with some approach to certainty. 

The weight of scientific opinion is to the effect that whatever 
food value there is or may be in alcohol it is so small as to be 
negligible in the rationing or nourishing of consumers. If taken 
under the right circumstances and in minute quantities, it is un- 
doubtedly burned in the human system in such a way as to pro- 
duce energy. The same is true of citric and acetic acid and 
various other substances. As these substances are commonly 
taken in real life, even by the most moderate drinkers, they pro- 
duce so little energy as to be negligible. As consumed by any but 
the most moderate drinkers, their deleterious effects vastly out- 
weigh any food value which they may have, or which they might 
show under the special conditions of a laboratory test. Any one 
who would take enough citric acid, for example, in the form of 
lemon juice to furnish an appreciable amount of energy would 
very likely suffer evil consequences. The same is peculiarly true 
of alcohol. In the actual rationing of a nation, therefore, its 
food value must be regarded as mil. The starch and sugar used 
in its manufacture must be regarded as a total loss so far as food 
is concerned. 

Why not limit or prohibit the use of lemon juice as well as of 
alcohol? Nature seems to do its own regulating in the case of 
lemon juice and all similar substances which may easily be taken 
in excess but for which there is no particular appetite which leads 
to excess. There are no statistics or observations to show that 
large numbers of men are incapacitated for work through over- 
indulgence in lemon juice. There are statistics and observations 
in abundance to show that considerable numbers of men are 
incapacitated through overindulgence in alcohol. Nature, in 
this case does not seem to do its own regulating by destroying the 


24 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS * 


liking for the substance before injury to the system results. 
Nature seems to set up such a defense against overconsumption 
of lemon juice and many other things which, if taken in excess, 
become injurious. The appetite is destroyed, nausea may even 
set in, as a warning and a safeguard against overconsumption. 
Where nature itself regulates, it is scarcely necessary that the 
government should concern itself about the matter. 

A prompt quietus is put upon the argument that alcohol or 
any form of alcoholic drink is a food by the proposal that, if so, 
they who use alcoholic drink in war time should have their allow- 
ance of “other kinds of food” correspondingly reduced. This 
would seem too obvious to need discussion in a time of food 
shortage when the population is being rationed. If a drinker and 
a non-drinker are allowed equal quantities of solid food, and the 
drinker is allowed, in addition, a quantity of “liquid food” 
whether in the form of alcoholic drink or of milk, obviously 
the drinker is being better “fed” than the non-drinker. If alcohol 
is a food, and if there is no waste in its manufacture, fairness in 
the distribution of food would require that if one family con- 
sumes as much alcohol as would require a pound of starch or 
of sugar in the making, its allowance of starch or of sugar 
should be reduced by one pound. When this was proposed in the 
House of Commons, nothing further was said by the defenders 
of alcohol as to its food value, which is a pretty clear indication 
as to the ingenuousness of the contention that alcoholic drink, 
as commonly taken, is a food.* 

It may be contended, of course, that alcoholic drinks are not 
identical with alcohol and that some of these drinks, such as 
beer, for example, may contain nourishment aside from the al- 
cohol which they contain. This contention, however, scarcely 
meets the issue. The real objection is to alcohol, its manufac- 
ture and its consumption, and not to the other ingredients that 
may be contained in these drinks. It is the alcohol which pro- 
duces drunkenness and it is the alcohol in whose production food 
materials are wasted. There has been no objection on the 

1See the Canadian Magazine, Vol. 49, 1917, page 302. 


GREAT BRITAIN ZS 


grounds of war economy to anything contained in these drinks 
except the alcohol. The liquor control policy either in the way 
of restriction or prohibition has not applied to nonalcoholic 
drinks. In some cases beer containing less than 2 per cent of 
proof spirit has been free from government restriction or control. 
Whatever nourishment there may be in beer aside from alcohol 
could still be. provided in a nonalcoholic drink or in a drink with 
so low an alcoholic content as not to bring it within the field of 
government restriction or control. Since it is only the alcohol 
which has been the real object of government repression, we are 
justified in considering the question of economy wholly from 
that point of view. 

But while we are safe in assuming that the loss of starch and 
sugar in the production of alcohol is irreparable, and that there 
is no calculable food value in the alcohol to compensate for the 
loss, it is not easy to calculate the exact loss resulting from the 
use of grain in brewing and distilling. Only the starch and sugar 
are used. The fats and the proteins remain in the slops from the 
distilleries and in the brewers’ grains and malt sprouts from the 
breweries. While they do not remain in form fit for human 
consumption, they have a certain value in the feeding of animals. 

So far we are on solid ground and not in the morass of opin- 
ion, conjecture, or calculation. How to estimate the comparative 
value of the whole grain on the one hand and of that part which 
is left after the brewer or the distiller is through with it, on the 
other, calls for some careful calculation. This calculation is 
made difficult by reason of the various uses to which grain is put, 
and the variety of conditions under which it is used. 

If only so much of the grain were used for the manufacture 
of flour or cereal foods for direct human consumption, as to 
leave a residue in the form of mill feeds with a feeding value 
equal to that of the refuse from the breweries and the distilleries, 
the whole food value of the flour or cereal would be saved. If 
the refuse from the flour or cereal mills were exactly equal in 
value for animal feeding to the refuse from the breweries and 
distilleries, these two items cancel each other. We should then 


26 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


have only to compare the food value of the flour and cereal with 
that of the alcohol. Since the latter is practically nil, it leaves 
the whole value of the former as a total gain when the grain is 
used for the production of flour and cereal, and a total loss when 
it is used for the production of alcoholic drinks. 

In ordinary times, the English people do not consume, in the 
form of bread or cereal, large quantities of the kinds of grain 
used in the manufacture of alcohol: In time of war, however, 
when there is a danger of food famine, a great many habits have 
to be changed. Barley and rye, which are the principal grains 
used in the manufacture of liquor in the United Kingdom make 
thoroughly satisfactory flour and are used for this purpose in 
many countries. Rye is the principal breadstuff of large numbers 
of people in Central and Eastern Europe. Rice and maize are 
also used by large portions of the population of the earth for 
their direct consumption. \ 

Sixty per cent of the barley may be made into flour suitable 
for making bread.’ A slightly larger percentage of the other 
grains can be thus utilized. If 60 per cent of all these grains 
were milled into flour or cereal, the remaining 40 per cent 
would have slightly higher value for the feeding of animals than 
the refuse would have if the same grain were used for the making 
of alcoholic drinks. The 60 per cent used for the manufacture 
of human food would therefore be a clear gain. This would 
amount to a total of 648,927,360 pounds for the United King- 
dom during the year ending March 31, 1914. This quantity 
would have furnished a pound of flour or cereal per day to one 
and three-quarters millions of people for a year. If we assume 
that two-thirds of a pound of dry flour will make a pound loaf 
of baker’s bread,” the extra third of a pound being in the form 
of moisture, and if we make a similar allowance for the cereal 
when it is cooked and prepared for consumption, we have the 


1“The closely adhering hull of barley grain constitutes about 15 per cent 
of its total weight.’ W. A. Henry: Feeds and Feeding. Eleventh Edition. 
Madison, Wis., 1911. Page 140. 

2 One hundred and ninety-six pounds of mixed rye, wheat and barley flour 
makes 290 pound loaves of bread. 


GREAT BRITAIN Dif 


equivalent of a pound loaf per day for two and five-eighths mil- 
lions of people. 

This calculation leaves out of account the sugar, syrup, and 

molasses used in the brewing and distilling industries. There is 
no data upon which to calculate the proportion of these materials 
that is suitable for human consumption. It is known that some 
materials of this kind are edible and other portions can be refined 
or purified and made edible, but just what proportions can not 
now be determined. On the other hand, it must be remembered 
that not all the alcohol which is distilled is destined for drink. A 
certain amount must be used for industrial purposes. This would 
certainly require more than the nonedible materials at present 
used in distillation. 
4 We have also left out of account the hops which figure among 
the materials used in brewing. Since they are not used as food, 
they could not figure directly as a part of the problem of the food 
supply. They could, however, be considered as indirectly affect- 
ing that problem by reason of the fact that they occupy land and 
engage labor which might otherwise produce food. In the long 
run this would be a legitimate consideration. As a matter of 
temporary war economy, however, it would be of more than 
doubtful expediency to destroy productive hop fields in order 
to grow grain. It would be similar to a policy of destroying 
vineyards and orchards in order to grow grain. While the food 
produced by an apple orchard in the form of fruit is less than 
might be produced if the land were devoted to the growing of 
grain, still the destruction of the apple trees for a temporary 
purpose would seem wasteful rather than economical. A parallel 
argument could be made with respect to the destruction of the 
hop fields. If the food shortage were likely to be long continued, 
it would be economical; it might also be necessary to sacrifice 
both the hop fields and the orchards. Only the most dire neces- 
sity would justify such destruction as part of the war time pro- 
gram of food production. 

One of the most difficult questions in the calculation of the loss 
through the use of grain in the manufacture of alcoholic drinks 


28 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


is that of appraising the relative value of the protein on the one 
hand and the starch and sugar on the other. The refuse from 
the breweries and distilleries contains practically all of the pro- 
tein which was formerly in the grain. A little is supposed to go 
into the beer and be held in solution. This is sometimes esti- 
mated as high as fifteen per cent of the total protein content of 
the grain. This, however, could be saved in beer with less than 
one per cent of pure alcohol, as well as in beer with a per cent 
high enough to produce intoxication. This means that the refuse 
from the brewery contains more protein than the refuse from the 
flour or cereal mill. On the other hand, it is the aim of the 
brewer or the distiller to use practically all of the starch and 
sugar and leave none of it in the refuse. This means that the 
refuse from the breweries and distilleries contains less starch 
and sugar than the refuse from the flour and cereal mills when 
60 per cent of the grain is milled for human consumption. 


In making malt the barley grains are first steeped in warm water until 
they are soft. The grain is then held at a warm temperature until it begins 
to sprout, in which process a ferment or enzyme called “diastase” converts 
the starch into a form of sugar called “maltose.” As soon as this change 
has occurred the sprouting grains are quickly dried. The tiny, dry, shriveled 
sprouts, separated from the grains are called “malt sprouts,” and the dried 
grains with their content of malt sugar form malt. In the manufacture of 
beer the brewer extracts the soluble malt sugar and some nitrogenous matter 
from the malt. The freshly extracted malt grains constitute wet brewers’ 
grains, which on drying in a vacuum are called dried brewers’ grains.1 

In the manufacture of alcohol, the corn, rye, etc., after grinding are 
treated with a solution of malt to convert the starch into sugar, which is next 
converted into alcohol by the action of yeast. This is distilled off and leaves 
a watery residue, known as distillers’ slops or slump. Formerly the slump 
was fed to fattening steers at the distillery; now it is largely dried in 
vacuum and the product placed on the market as a cattle feed under various 
proprietary names. In 1904 Lindsey of the Massachusetts (Hatch) Station 
placed the annual output of dried distillers’ grains at 60,000 tons. Until 
recently, most of this product was exported to Germany. Dried distillers’ 
grains are rich in digestible crude protein and fat, with a fair content of | 
carbohydrates. Corn makes the richest and rye the poorest dried distillers’ 
grains.? 


1Ww. A. Henry: op. cit., page 141. 
2 Tbid., page 208. 


GREAT BRITAIN 29 


It has been too often assumed that the protein is the only food 
element which has any value in the feeding of animals, but this 
assumption is completely without foundation. It is true that 
every feeder of animals buys protein and pays a high price to 
get it, and that feeds rich in protein bring a slightly higher price 
than feeds rich in starch and sugar. Nevertheless, starch is the 
most important element in animal feed and much more starch 
than protein is required. It happens, however, that in spite of 
the larger demand for starch than for protein, the supply of 
starch is even larger in proportion than the demand for it and 
the supply of protein smaller in proportion than the demand. 
This presents a problem which can only be solved after the most 
elaborate experimentation. 

We have next to consider the relative value for purposes of 
human nutrition of the whole grain when fed,to animals and 
of the refuse from the breweries and distilleries when similarly 
used. How much more milk is produced from a bushel of barley 
when the whole grain is fed to milk cows than is produced from 
the residue from the same bushel of barley after it has passed 
through the brewery or distillery? Here, again, some miscon- 
ceptions have arisen because of the consideration of protein to 
the exclusion of starch as a food element. Since most of the 
protein remains in the refuse from the breweries and distilleries, 
it has been assumed, for what reason it would be impossible to 
state, that there is no loss in feeding value. It has even been 
hinted that there was a gain in feeding value. People have been 
warned that if the brewing and distilling industries were stopped, 
and there was therefore no more refuse to be had from these 
sources, it would actually cut down the feed available for dairy 
cows,! and therefore cut down the supply of milk. This could 


1 For example, S. J. Thompson, in a letter to The Nation (New York) for 
May 17, 1917, says: “In considering the prohibition question as it would affect 
the food supply of the country, it might be well for someone to call attention 
to a fact too often overlooked, or at least disregarded. In the distillation of 
alcohol and spirits about one-third of the weight of the grain used is returned 
in the form of a very valuable by-product, called distillers’ dried grains. 
This product contains all of the protein and almost all of the fat content 
of the whole grain, the only loss being in the starch or carbohydrates. For 


30 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


mean nothing, of course, except that the whole grain when fed 
would make less milk than the refuse would make after the 
starch and sugar were extracted. This, of course, is absurd, 
and no one with any understanding of the subject could make 
such a statement. The whole grain, of course, contains all the 
protein that the refuse could possibly contain; in addition to 
which it contains starch. Since starch is an important element 
of food value, the whole is greater than a part in this as in other 
cases. In fact, the most of the feeding value of grain is in the 
starch rather than in the protein, although the commercial value 
per pound of protein is higher than that of starch. This is more 
than compensated by the fact that there are more pounds of 
starch than of protein in a bushel of grain. 

Figuring on protein values alone led Messrs. Kellogg and 
Taylor, in their otherwise valuable book on the Food Prob- 
lem,* to conclude: “Obviously there is from the nutritional 
point of view little loss when barley is employed in the manu- 
facture of beer and the residue fed to domesticated animals con- 
trasted with the results of direct feeding of the barley to the 
animals.” 

On the other hand, Lawes and Gilbert of the Rothamstead 
Station (Rothamstead Memoirs, Vol. IV), after experimenting 
with malt, conclude: 

A given weight of barley is more productive both of the milk of cows 
and of the increase in live weight of fattening animals than the amount of 
malt and malt sprouts that would be produced from it. ... Irrespective of 
economy, malt is undoubtedly a very good food for stock; and common 
experience seems to.show that a certain amount of it is beneficial . .. to 


young or weakly animals, or in making up for exhibition or sale; that is, 
when the object is to produce a particular result, irrespective of economy.? 


the feeding of dairy cattle, distillers’ grains are worth three times as much 
as corn, as they furnish three times as much protein, and protein is the 
essential nutrient for milk making. Thus, while the bulk, the weight, is 
reduced to one-third, the value as a dairy feed is increased inversely. If 
milk, then, is ane of the most important of human foods, it would seem that 
there could be no economic loss in taking at least one per cent of the corn 
crop and converting it into distillers’ grains, quite aside from any argument 
concerning the value of the aes itself.” 

1 New York, 1917. Page 206. 

2 Quoted by W. A. Henry: op. cit., page 141. 


GREAT BRITAIN 31 


Something depends upon the question as to which policy is 
pursued, that is, upon the question whether the feeding of the 
entire grain to animals is for the purpose of increasing the num- 
ber of animals and animal products, or whether it is to displace 
an equivalent quantity of other feeds in maintaining the same 
number of animals and producing the same quantity of animal 
products. If the entire grain now used in the manufacture of 
alcoholic drinks were fed to animals, it would maintain more 
animals than can be maintained by feeding the refuse alone. 
If this merely means more animals and more animal products, 
there would be saved only the additional animal food. If the 
same number of animals were maintained, and the whole grain 
fed to them, an equal amount of other grain would be available 
for human consumption. In the latter case the effect on the 
food supply would be identical with the effect when the grain 
is itself used for direct human consumption. The identity of 
the grain used is a matter of indifference from the standpoint 
of the food supply. It is a question of kind and quantity used. 
If the closing of the distilleries and breweries did not increase 
the total amount of grain fed to animals, it would necessarily 
increase the amount available for other purposes than the feed- 
ing of animals. Presumably this increase would be available 
for human consumption in the form of flour, cereal, starch or 
glucose. 

In the manufacture of starch and glucose from grain, only 
the starch is extracted and all the protein and fat are left in 
the residue.’- In this respect there is a closer analogy between 
the manufacture of these products and the manufacture of al- 
cohol than there is between the manufacture of flour or cereal 
and the manufacture of alcohol. Since all the protein is left in 
the residue from the starch and glucose factories, there is fully 
as much protein available for animal feeding when grain is 
used for these purposes as is available when it is used in the 


1Cf. Whitman Howard Jordan: The Feeding of Animals. New York, 
1901. Page 236. 


32 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


manufacture of alcohol. We then have only to compare the 
food value of the starch and the glucose with that of the alcohol. 

Enough has been said to show beyond all doubt that the whole 
grain has more nutritive value for human consumption when a 
part of it is made into flour, cereal, starch, or glucose and the 
residue fed to animals than when it is used in the making of 
alcohol and the residue is fed. It is also certain that when the 
whole grain is fed to animals it has more feeding value than 
the part which remains after the process of brewing or dis- 
tilling. If the whole grain were available for the feeding of 
animals, more food producing animals could be supported than 
can be supported on the residue, or else, the same number of 
animals could be fed, in which case more grain would then be 
available for direct human consumption. 

It is well known that there is a loss of nutritive value when 
food suitable for human consumption is fed to animals for the 
purpose of producing animal products. That is to say, the 
nutritive value of a given amount of grain is greater than that 
of the milk or meat which it will produce when it is fed to 
animals. Therefore, if the starch saved from the breweries 
and distilleries were used to add to our total production of milk 
or meat, the added milk and meat would have less nutritive 
value than the starch itself. If, however, the starch is not used 
to increase our production of milk and meat, but only to dis- 
place other grain feeds, the whole of these other grains is saved. 
While it is clear that there is some saving in either case, the 
amount of saving, in terms of human nutrients, depends there- 
fore upon whether it adds to our supply of starch on the one 
hand or to our supply of animal foods on the other. 

Jordan in his work on The Feeding of Animals? gives the 
following table showing the amount of human food produced 
by 100 pounds of digestible organic matter in an animal ration, 
when fed to different animals: 


1Qp. cit., pages 405, 406. 


GREAT BRITAIN 33 


RELATION OF FOOD TO PRODUCT 


Propucep By 100 Les. 
DIGESTIBLE ORGANIC 
Matter In RaTIon 


Marketable Edible 


product solids 
lbs. Ibs 
Miilkewoecheral average 22. of. iv. sks esate se keet sakes 139.0 18.0 
MrikeoNew) York expetiments (oto ices caske ese casts ce 158.7 20.6 
RUETEESE NO RCER sie oc oe anys Wey als cla Wate Shay Na er 28 ae pee 14.8 9.4 
LETTE) © ARS RIANA AR LSS ed ROPE A CUR EIS SI Ie UEP aS) ee aa 6.4 5.44 
Steers, general average, live weight .................... 13.5 - 
SECEES) LOW WIVeG WEIGHE, Soceriue Me ate aa ecc aS sc cle os ec 16.8 a. 
STEERS wiwansase lve uWelmhe?..cnisni o2.cc aio dem = oh ale ox 21g = ois 12.4 ie: 
SLCELS eiViatne MINE mWEINnh oe ob Sack Jas od seas otek oe ns vac 15.0 me 8e 
Steers. senerallvaverace. CarGaSS: cio 2 oe cjcee dee wcutiece 8.3 2.75 
SUeeGh TTR wetiven cGy SSE oe Ae a ene ee ae 10.7 3.56 
SEC EES UMIM TIS AS REALCASS Gat oa eee cp yei cs ei cece saath els a 7.6 2.52 
SECIS a MAING MCALEASSIIN: Sodan come er cet cess se caeca ede = 8.7 2.84 
Sheep and lambs, general average, live weight............ 13.9 Says 
PMNS lO aeVeL WEIMHEM ocictoeis sc | Sate ose eats cose se deee 17.8 have 
Sheep and lambs, general average, carcass .............. 7.0 2.60 
erro wt CARCASS IS ees coe cere acne emai cas oe ees 9.6 3.25 
Swine, general average, live weight ..................... 30.4 = 
Seine. Tia Ss Ga Se a ee oe 33.0 be 
Swine, general average, carcass .........-......-eeeeeeee 25.0 15.6 
evcarulem serie lel RUeU WEIONE ye 5.2 3.ccla tn Cieveiecscg Spats aie bis ewes we 19.6 Ae 
ewie resSe@\ GAECASS: aVETAGe J. wom. o- «cco seat ee eee 15.6 42 
RpatieEStmtivewiwweleliine seit ic On. oe ara cinceicin sc calaes 65 ies 28.7 BAe 
MEELS GLeSSCE! CAECASGH -- oA sien noe ae chee ems coe sees sce 23.8 3.5 
19.6 Sat 


IBEES qsdegeS oop ove une ones Ae eee eee ae Poe 


On page 20 of this monograph it was shown that 3,044,- 
168,506 pounds of grain were used in the brewing and dis- 
tilling industries in the United Kingdom during the year end- 
ing September 30, 1913. How much more food in the way 
of animal products would this have produced if the whole grain 
had been fed to animals, than when only the refuse was fed? 
The dairy cow is, according to the above table, the most eff- 
cient animal for turning animal feed into a human food, but 
the food elements in milk are mainly protein, fat, and sugar. 
The protein in the milk is apparently derived exclusively from 
the protein in the feed. Therefore, comparatively little more 
protein could be produced by feeding the whole grain than by 
feeding the refuse, since the refuse contains most of the protein. 
The butter fat and the milk sugar, however, are derived largely 
from the starches and sugars in the animals’ feed. If protein 
were the only desirable food element in the milk, it would make 


34 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


little difference whether the whole grain were fed or only the 
refuse; but fats of all kinds are quite as scarce in the countries 
at war as are proteins. It is, therefore, quite as desirable that 
the supply of butter be increased as that the supply of cheese, 
which contains the protein of milk, should be increased. Subse- 
quent experience in England has shown that butter is one of 
the scarcest of all articles of food. For masses of the people — 
it has been practically unattainable since the war began. How- 
ever, if the whole grain were fed and certain other forms of 
feed rich in protein were added to balance up the ration, a con- 
siderable increase in the cheese itself would result. In no case 
is this to be understood as an argument in favor of feeding 
animals on a ration of pure starch. It is only a calculation to 
show what would result if the starch destroyed in brewing and 
distilling were saved and added to the other feeds available for 
animals in the United Kingdom. 

About 65 per cent of the barley kernel and 67 per cent of the 
rye kernel are in the form of starch.’ Approximately 11 per 
cent of this grain, even in the dry state, is water.2, After allowing 
for the starch which the brewer and distiller fail to extract and 
which therefore remains in the refuse, it appears that between 40 
per cent and 45 per cent of the weight of the grain represents 
the loss of starch. Forty per cent of the total grain used in 
brewing and distilling would be 1,217,667,402. If this were fed to 
cows in a proper ration it should have produced a considerable 
addition to the butter supply. According to Jordan’s table, 100 
pounds of digestible organic matter in the ration of the cow pro- 
duces a little over 6 pounds of butter. Assuming that 100 pounds 
of starch will make 6 pounds of butter, we find that the starch 
used in making alcohol in the United Kingdom would make a 
total of 73,060,044 pounds of butter, or a little over a pound 
and a half apiece for every man, woman and child in the United 
Kingdom. 

When fed to swine, however, the starch would probably not 


1See Jordan: op. cit., page 57. 
2 Ibid., page 424. 


GREAT BRITAIN 35 


add anything to the protein in the carcasses. It would add un- 
doubtedly to the fat, which has a very large element in the food 
value of pork products. According to the authority just cited, 
100 pounds of digestible organic matter in the animal ration 
would add a little over 15 pounds to the edible solids in the pork 
products. Assuming that 7 pounds of this is in the form of fat, 
we find that the starch used in the manufacture of alcohol in 
the United Kingdom would make, if fed to hogs, a total of 
85,236,718 pounds of pork fat. No other animal is so efficient 
in turning feed into human food. When fed to steers, on the 
same basis of calculation, this starch would produce only about 
10,000,000 pounds of human food in the form of beef fat. 

In time of threatened famine or even a serious food shortage, 
it is highly improbable that an increased supply of grain thus 
made available would be used up in the production of animal 
food; since, as stated above, the food value of the grain for 
direct human consumption is much greater than the food value 
of the animal product which it will produce, it is quite certain 
that a policy of food conservation would reduce rather than in- 
crease the number of animals kept and the quantity of animal 
products produced. This brings us back to the earlier basis of 
calculation. This means that the grain saved from breweries 
and distilleries, at least the edible portions of it, would be used 
for direct human consumption in the form of flour, cereal, starch 
and glucose. 

As to the waste caused by drunkenness or the inefficiency 
which is due to excessive drinking on the part of workers, it 
is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory measurements. As shown 
on page 21, the total convictions for drunkenness in the course 
of the last year preceding the war were 234,571. Assuming 
that one day was lost for each conviction for drunkenness and 
dividing this by the approximate number of working days in a 
year, it is equal to the working time of 782 men for a year. 
This, of course, is not a very large fraction of the total work- 
ing power of the whole population; but this is a considerable 
underestimate of the loss, as will appear from several considera- 


36 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


tions. In the first place, one day is a low estimate of the time 
lost for every conviction. In the second place, no figures are 
available to show the loss of time by people who are drunk, but 
not convicted before a court. In the third place, it takes no 
account of the loss in skill and efficiency on the part of men who 
are at work but whose efficiency is somewhat impaired by reason 
of their having partaken too freely of alcohol. In a kind of 
work requiring such care, skill and responsibility as the mak- 
ing of munitions, this item of loss may easily outweigh all others. 
In the fourth place, it leaves out of account the undermining of 
the health, and the consequent increase of sickness among those 
who drink pretty regularly, but who are seldom or never in a 
state even bordering on drunkenness. In the fifth place, it fur- 
nishes no indication as to the loss in efficiency in succeeding 
generations due to the bad home conditions in the families of 
the hard drinkers. 

If, instead of counting merely one day of lost time for every 
conviction for drunkenness, we count two days, and if we as- 
sume that for every conviction there is at least another case 
which escapes conviction because it is not found in a disorderly 
condition in a public place, we should multiply by four the total 
number of days lost under our previous calculation. Instead of 
a loss of the working time of 782 men for a full year, it now 
becomes a loss of the working time of 3,128 men for a year. 
If we continue by adding other items of the above enumeration, 
the figures mount higher and higher. There is, however, no 
known method of reducing this calculation to the test of meas- 
ured and recorded facts. 

To offset this loss, however, there is the undoubted value of 
drink as a fool killer. In the long run, and in normal times, 
unstable natures may gradually be weeded out of the population 
through the influence of any temptation which is peculiarly 
deadly to such natures. The orderly occupations of peace can 
doubtless make little use of such natures and if they are re- 
moved to give room for more orderly and stable characters, there 
is doubtless some gain. But in time of war, this is a considera- 


GREAT BRITAIN Sh 


tion of little value. Impulsive and unstable natures may be 
quite as usable as the orderly and stable ones. The state needs 
them all. If it is to make use of the kind of men who can not 
withstand the dangers of drink, it must obviously protect them 
against that danger which is especially deadly to them. 

So much has been made in the past of the revenue which 
various governments derive from liquor taxes, that the question 
can not be ignored in a discussion of this kind. The advantage 
of the liquor tax, however, is not in any sense an economic ad- 
vantage. It is merely an illustration of Colbert’s famous maxim 
that “taxation is the art of getting the maximum amount of 
feathers with the minimum amount of squawking.” If we dis- 
tinguish sharply between the economic and the demagogic as- 
pects of the question, it is perfectly obvious that the buying of 
alcoholic liquor does not create any new wealth. The buyer of 
a drink may be told that a certain fraction of the price which 
he pays will go into the coffers of the state. If he is very 
anxious for the drink, he may consent to pay this tax to the 
state more willingly than he would if asked to pay the same 
fraction into the coffers of the state without getting the drink. 
Unless, however, the drink is of some economic advantage to 
him, he is certainly no better off when he pays his tax to the 
state in this way than he would be if he paid it directly. If he 
is in some way prevented from spending his money on drink, he 
will be economically better off if he is taxed directly the equiva- 
lent of the small fraction of the price of the drink which goes 
to the state; he would have left in his pocket at least the rest 
of the price of the drink. 

This argument, of course, would apply equally well to all 
taxes on luxuries. The only economic advantage to the country 
from any tax on luxuries is that it tends to repress the con- 
sumption of luxuries. Whether the luxury be in the form of 
an alcoholic drink or in some other form is a matter of no con- 
sequence. If, however, there are other and more effective ways 
of repressing the consumption of the luxury in question, it can 
hardly be considered an economic loss to give up a less effective 


38 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


method of repression in favor of a more effective method. 
When the deliberate purpose of a luxury tax is the repression 
of luxurious consumption, this furnishes the poorest kind of an 
argument in favor of encouraging the continuance of luxurious 
consumption in order to provide revenue for the state. Yet 
this is the predicament in which one is placed who argues that 
there is any economic advantage in deriving revenue from the 
manufacture and sale of an alcoholic luxury. 

From the purely demagogical point of view, however, the 
government, as distinct from the people who are governed, may 
sometimes find it necessary to resort to this method of raising 
revenue. Under.a popular government, of course, there is no 
power of raising taxes except through the consent of the people 
who pay the taxes. If this consent can be more easily secured 
for one form of taxation than for another, that may be a good 
enough reason why the government should propose the one 
rather than the other in normal times. If one were advising the 
government, one might even advise the use of the one form of 
taxation rather than of the other. That is, the adviser to the 
government might say, in effect, the people are so unwise or so 
disloyal that they will not vote for direct taxes nor will they 
vote for any candidate for public office who proposes to tax 
them directly. Therefore the only wise thing to do, since reve- 
nue is necessary, is to tax them indirectly. If, however, the ad- 
viser were not giving advice to the government, but to the people 
themselves as to what kind of a tax they ought to support by 
their votes, he would have a different question altogether. It 
would be rather absurd to say to the people, you are so very 
unwise that you can not see the economic advantage of paying a 
tax directly, or so disloyal that you will not consent to it, but 
you think erroneously that you gain some advantage or bear 
less burden when you pay your taxes in the form of an excise 
on useless or harmful things which you buy. Therefore, you 
ought to go right on buying these useless or harmful luxuries 
in order to deceive yourselves into paying necessary taxes to the 
government, since the government must have revenue from one 


GREAT BRITAIN 39 


source or another. This, however, is in effect what a good many 
self-styled “practical men” are telling the people, not only with 
respect to excise on alcoholic drinks, but with respect to the 
consumption of other nonessentials. 


CHAPTER II 
The Attitude of the Public 


The distinction pointed out at the close of the last chapter 
between the government and the people makes it necessary for 
us to find out what the people were saying and thinking, as well 
as what the government was doing about the liquor question. 
Mr. Lloyd George left no doubt as to his own personal views on 
the subject in his famous remark, “We are fighting Germany, 
Austria, and drink, and, as far as I can see, the greatest of these 
deadly foes is drink.”’ Nevertheless, as an agent of government, 
he could do nothing more than the people were willing to stand. 
In the New York Times of June 16, 1915, Arnold Bennett is 
quoted as saying: “The government failed in its attempt to 
handle the drink question. It failed because there is no sufficient 
body of opinion in Britain about alcohol; it failed because as a 
nation we have never been educated about alcohol; and the new 
government will fail for the same reason.” 

The development of public opinion upon any topic is a very 
elusive matter and the process is very difficult to describe. The 
attention given to the drink question in England as the war pro- 
gressed showed a definite quantitative increase, yet that increase 
can not be measured. Some indication as to the rate of increase 
can be found by merely measuring the space given to the drink 
question in the Index to the London Times from quarter to 
quarter. The following curve shows the increase: 


GREAT BRITAIN Al 


1914 1914 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916 1916 1916 1916 1917 1917 1917 


RSEUZE SESE aEIESESES 
3 Jnl [es | SPs [nel se Lobe at [ne hs oe 
Pir ert Pree Crt t eee 
SERDAR Ree Se ee eee 
HEaRe Se Ad se Tees ae 
ie hr a 


Bape pep pap Rawepapay pie Pel: ft 
Li eee EPP eT TT | 
aaa oe tea Saw Re eee 
pears ete ey eet 
Defi ewe Aaa eee 
2089 22ST Meee eee 


Seeg AE IMRY NESSES cette = 
Seegug IEMugREseeseetbeees 
2488 oa os eA eee 


42 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


The curve given below shows the amount of space in the 
London Times devoted to Beer, as a topic distinct from Drink: 


1914 1914 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916 1916 1916 1916 1917 1917 1917 


| aye | ops | fe | abe. | ater | oft. | sm] abr | laity | obs] sal aaa 
| sdor.| vée. [mafen| suine | sept.| Dbe. |maron| June | sépt.| Deo. |maron| June | sept. | 


; ERERRESERS 

thesia a 
: Ltr TT eee 

SERRE 
5 ERBEREREESD 

SRERRESERE 
sett REET ELT Le 
eet TE PL eee 
(AEE 
|| PT EA 
LTT APT ae 
ff | -f) -f-|-) 
REG SE On ae see ee NEPaEao. 
BER AREKURRERREREENDA 


Pt NGS eV ee 
LT NS 
PIV TTT PNA TTT ee 


While this curve furnishes some indication as to the amount 
of attention given to the subject, it shows nothing as to the devel- 
opment of opinion for or against any particular policy or method 
of handling the drink question. 

Discussion was first provoked by the Order in Council giving 
the competent naval and military authorities power to forbid or 
restrict the selling of liquor within specified areas. Any one 
could see the necessity of strict military discipline and of giving 
officers considerable authority in its enforcement. When soldiers 
or sailors were likely to be incapacitated by being drunk at critical 
times, no one but the most perverse could object if the officers 
who were responsible for the success of undertakings of vital 
importance were permitted to take such action as would keep 
their men from getting drunk. 

A study of the files of the London Times shows that this was 


GREAT BRITAIN 43 


the view generally taken. In its issue of October 17, 1914, it 
says of the licensed trade: 


It will loyally support all reasonable demands made by those who are 
answerable for the well being of the defensive forces of the country and 
the maintenance of public order, but it resents any attempt by those whose 
object and aim is prohibition to make use of a national crisis to foist upon 
the community measures unduly interfering with the rights and liberty of the 
public; and it protests against the imposition of drastic restrictions without 
any corresponding alleviation of the excessive duties based on assessments 
arrived at in a period of normal hours of trade. 


On October 13 it said: 


It is a very simple and moderate remedy, but effective and not resented 
because it is moderate. Everybody who really knows our public house popu- 
lation is aware that a great deal of drunkenness occurs merely through 
accumulation. A moderate curtailment of hours will stop this cause of 
drunkenness, which is the principal influence in such cases as these young 
men in training. The question of further curtailment has been discussed by 
some benches, but the decision is against it, and probably for sound reasons, 
though special circumstances may in some places call for specific measures. 


On October 28 it published an article entitled, “An Appeal 
for Sobriety,” in which Lord Kitchener and the Archbishop of 
Canterbury appeal to the public to help in maintaining sobriety 
among the soldiers in training by refraining from the practice 
of treating. Physical fitness constituted the basis of the appeal. 

On November 13 it mentions the League of the Khaki Button, 
founded by the Archdeacon of Chesterfield, whose wearers 
pledge not to stand any one a drink or to be stood a drink until 
the war is over. 

On November 18, regarding Lloyd George’s proposed tax of 
a “halfpenny on the half pint,” it states that the brewers say 
they will submit, but hint at bankruptcy. 

Mr. Chamberlain says: 

The halfpenny on the half pint plus the other circumstances adverse to 
that particular trade—the absence of drinking at home and the curtailment 
of the hours—will produce 35 per cent reduction of consumption. I ask any 
manufacturer or trader to say what would be the effect on his profits of a 
reduction of 35 per cent in his turnover. I think the Chancellor will perhaps 


be convinced that he is not leaving a sufficient margin to meet the extra strain 
thrown upon the trade. 


44 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


On December 31, in an article on “The Consumption of Beer,” 
it Says: 


When the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his extra tax on beer to help 
pay for the war, he calculated that the fall in consumption on account of the 
increased price would be about 23 per cent. ) 

The immediate effect was a drop in consumption of close on 60 per cent. 
Many of the brewers forthwith reduced their production. 

Later reports from the country show a notable rise in consumption, which 
varies considerably, of course, according to the nature of the place and the 
density of the population. But in manufacturing centers the attachment of 
the average working man to his “pint” has overcome the fit of economy which 
seized him when the price went up and there is almost as much beer being 
consumed as ever. 


In its issue of March 2, 1915, it comments on Mr. Lloyd 
George’s speech on drink, as follows: 


Mr. Lloyd George’s remarks in his Bangor speech on the drink question 
in relation to our industrial productivity were freely discussed in the lobby 
yesterday. It is understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended 
his remarks to be regarded as a warning rather than as a threat. The gov- 
ernment have no immediate intention of introducing fresh legislation for 
restricting the hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold. It should, 
however, be borne in mind that the Defense of the Realm Act entrusts the 
responsible authorities with very wide powers in respect of licensed premises 
which have by no means been fully exercised so far. The existing war 
restrictions have been chiefly imposed in the interests of our soldiers and 
sailors. Ministers, however, have been greatly impressed by the moral gain 
achieved by the Russian suppression of the vodka, and the significance of 
Lloyd George’s words lies in the suggestion that future regulation of the 
liquor traffic may be applied in the interests of the civil population. 


On March 23, 1915, it published a letter signed “Working 
Class,” protesting against the implication that the working classes 
were greater sinners than others in the matter of drink: 


In his proposals with regard to drinking facilities, Mr. Lloyd George’s 
magnificent good sense has for once forsaken him. In “certain areas” the 
public houses are to be opened only during limited hours. I belong to the 
working classes, and as one of their own class who knows them well I ven- 
ture to suggest that the truer way to win their support is to ask them to 
submit to a restriction which the whole community accept. This is no “tem- 
perance question.” It is a matter of equal sacrifice on the part of all for 
the sake of the nation in war time. (Of course the brewers, distillers and 
publicans must be adequately compensated.) The working classes feel that 


GREAT BRITAIN 45 


the aristocracy of England is thoroughly playing the game in this war, but 
they feel that the merchants, shippers, and manufacturers are out mostly 
for self. This may be a harsh judgment. But we have to take the facts as 
they are. No class will be more loyal than the working classes to any 
common restrictions affecting all alike. They will resent being pilloried for 
special treatment. Now the government is doubtless acting as far as it 
thinks public opinion will support it and what the situation demands is a new 
public opinion. Will the aristocracy not give us another lead? If the prin- 
cipal social and political clubs in London voluntarily agreed, and that quickly, 
to accept the same limitations with regard to the hours at which drinks may 
be served as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes for workingmen, it 
would do much to make the movement a national one. 


On March 30, in an article entitled “Conference on Drink,” 
it says: 


A deputation representative of the leading shipbuilding firms in the 
country was received yesterday at the Treasury by the Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer and Secretary for Scotland. The deputation was unanimous in 
urging that in order to meet the national requirements at the present time 
and the urgent necessities of the position, there should be a total prohibition 
during the period of the war of the sale of excisable liquors. It was rep- 
resented by them that mere restriction of hours, or even total prohibition 
within certain areas, was not sufficient, as certain classes would be entirely 
unaffected, and it was felt by the deputation that total prohibition should 
apply as an emergency war measure not only to public houses, but to private 
clubs and other licensed premises, so as to operate equally for all classes of 
the community. In putting forward these views, those who spoke on behali 
of the deputation expressed themselves as satisfied that there was a general 
consensus of opinion on the part of the workers favorable to total prohibition 
along the lines indicated. 

It was stated that in many cases the number of hours being worked was 
actually less than before the war, and in spite of Sunday labor and all other 
time, the total time worked on the average in almost all yards was below the 
normal number of hours per week. In spite of working night and day, seven 
days a week, less productiveness was being secured from the men. The 
deputation was of opinion that this was principally due to the question of 
drmk, . |. 

The deputation drew attention to the example set by Russia and France, 
and urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need of strong and 
immediate action. 

Mr. Lloyd George in his reply said that nothing but root and branch 
methods would be of the slightest avail in dealing with this evil. 

He added that success in this war was now purely a question of muni- 
tions, and mentioned that the King had permitted him to say that his Majesty 
was very deeply concerned on the question. 


46 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


In the issue of March 31, the Newcastle correspondent says: 


The Boilermakérs’ Society has lost no time in replying to the remarks 
made at the conference on drink and armaments Monday . . . the tales 
told by-the Shipbuilding Federation are the same old misrepresentations, 
exaggerations and contradictions that have been heard from them many 
times. . . . This wholly unjustifiable attack will do more than all the 
drink in the country to diminish output. 


On March 31, 1915, is the following editorial comment: 


The question of lost time in the workshop is the urgent problem of the 
moment. Just at present the cry is that drink explains the whole thing and 
that some drastic, but as yet undefined, step must be taken to deal with the 
drink traffic. . . . The deputation of shipbuilders who waited on Mr. 
Lloyd George laid the whole blame upon it, if we understand them correctly 
and they are confirmed by Dr. Charles Harford, secretary of the committee 
appointed to investigate the subject at the conference summoned by the 
Archbishop of Canterbury in the autumn. It is not necessary to agree with 
all he says in order to admit the magnitude of the evil. It is denied by no 
one and only a few days ago, it was urged upon the government by the rep- 
resentatives of one of the great trade unions. In the letter to Mr. Lloyd 
George published last week from Mr. Gosling and Mr. R. Williams of the 
National Transportation Workers Federation, the effect of excessive drink- 
ing on the output of munitions of war was emphasized in very strong terms. 
About the remedy there is, unfortunately, no such agreement. Many pro- 
posals are made from general prohibition downward. Mr. Lloyd George 
rather hinted at general prohibition in his reply to the deputation on Monday, 
but we gather that the government has as yet come to no very definite opinion 
beyond the urgent importance, which indeed is manifest, of grappling with 
the problem at once. We presume that at any rate they recognize the neces- 
sity of dealing with clubs as well as public houses and applying any measure 
impartially to all classes. If both these conditions were not fulfilled, no 
measure would have the slightest success; it would throw a great number of 
persons out of work and excite general resentment for nothing. The only 
chance of its acceptance by the men whom it is intended to influence would 
be for others to set an example for those in high places. If they continue 
to drink at the club and at home, so will the Clyde and Tyne workmen. 
Can not we inaugurate such legislation as may be called by a self-denying 
ordinance voluntarily accepted for the term of the war by those whose busi- 
ness it is to set a good example to the nation? 


In the same issue, Mr. H. G. Robinson, Secretary of the 
Licensed Victualers’ National Defense League, said: 


Mr. Lloyd George told the deputation made by the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer that no statesman could go in advance of public opinion, and in 


GREAT BRITAIN 47 


that expression alone there is indication of the danger that would inevitably 
follow any attempt to introduce a measure for national prohibition. It must 
be borne in mind that Mr. Lloyd George on Monday heard simply the views 
of the employers’ representatives. The views and feelings which exist among 
the general body of workers have not yet been voiced. Before the govern- 
ment intervenes to ask for special legislation, or for the issuing of an order 
by the Privy Council with the sanction of his Majesty, both sides of the 
question I have no doubt will be carefully considered and the evidence that 
can be produced by employers and employed will be sifted thoroughly. 

Speaking as the representative of many thousands of licensed victualers, 
I can say honestly that throughout England and Wales we have assured the 
army that as far as lies in our power we will prevent such mischief arising 
as that which is now causing so much anxiety. To no one has the complaint 
made by the deputation caused more regret than to licensed victualers, who 
feel that a small number of men are not only bringing disgrace upon their 
own class, but are responsible for serious injury to a legitimate trade. 


In the issue of March 31 are also contained comments from 
different localities on this matter of prohibition, which may be 
summarized as follows: 


She ffield—The attitude both on the part of the employers and the men’s 
leaders is, generally speaking, strongly opposed to total prohibition. 

Manchester —Inquiries in engineering quarters show that there is no 
general demand in‘the city for the prohibition of drinking facilities. 

Birmingham.—Opinion with regard to the hours of public houses is 
against total closing, but in favor of curtailment. 

Barrow.—A fairly good reception has been given to the suggestion that 
during the continuance of the war all public-houses in districts where gov- 
ernment contracts are being turned out shall be totally closed. At no town 
in the country has such bad time been made by the men who have preferred 
to spend their time in public houses. It is felt that total prohibition will 
lead to a very great increase in production of munitions of war. Publicans 
profess to be ready to accept the scheme if they are to receive compensation 
for loss of trade. 


The issue of April 2 contains statements from the following 
places: 


Cardiff—For some months hotels and clubs have been closed at 9 p.m. 
and it is generally considered that this is a reasonable and satisfactory 
arrangement. 

Plymouth—The nine o'clock closing is working satisfactorily. Some 
believe it would be an advantage if the public houses were not opened early 
in the morning, but generally speaking there are few complaints of lost 
time through drinking. 


48 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Liverpool—Mr. Wright, President of the Licensed Victualers’ Associa- 
tion of this city said at a meeting yesterday that the suggested prohibition 
of drinking during the war was too drastic a step to be successful and that 
the present arrangement should be given a fair trial first. 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne—Public opinion is hard to gauge. The licensed 
trade is silent for patriotic reasons. Employers generally favor prohibition, 
but the men’s leaders believe that further curtailment of hours should be 
tried before prohibition is resorted to. 

Leeds.—No strong feeling is expressed either for prohibition or reduced 
hours. 

Belfast—There is not’ the same excessive drinking here by workmen on 
war contracts as apparently exists in other centres. There is no general 
desire for prohibition, but opinion is strongly in favor of restricting hours. 

Glasgow.—The alternative suggested to total prohibition in the Clyde dis- 
trict is restriction of hours. 

Warwickshire—The opinion of the miner’s agent is strongly against total 
prohibition as unfair to the working classes, very few of whom neglected 
their work through drink. 

Southampton—The Southampton Trades and Labor Council, representing 
nearly 20,000 organized workers, has passed a resolution against the proposed 
prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors to the working classes. It was 
admitted that a few lost time through drink, but that the great majority 
should not be penalized on their account. 


There is also in the issue for March 31 a letter from Charles 
F.. Harford, which says: 


Last November a conference was held under the presidency of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury to consider this subject, which consisted of people 
interested generally in the welfare of the nation, but who were not neces- 
sarily associated with the temperance societies. This conference recognized 
the great national peril which arose from the drink habits of the nation, 
but suggested as a first effort that an attempt should be made to deal with 
the admitted danger by means of a patriotic pledge of voluntary abstinence 
for the period of the war and by provision of suitable means for refresh- 
ment and recreation apart from the sale of drink, in addition to the opera- 
tions of the Temperance Restrictions Act. I was appointed the honorary 
secretary of the committee formed to carry out the resolutions of that con- 
ference and it was my duty to communicate them to all the mayors and 
chairmen of district councils throughout England, the other parts of the 
United Kingdom being otherwise dealt with. I have also had the opportunity 
of reading all the press comments on this subject from that time onward and 
I have no hesitation in saying that any voluntary efforts which could be put 
forth are utterly unable to cope with the existing difficulty, and I am con- 
vinced that, if the government will take the drastic action proposed by the 
representatives of the shipbuilding firms, public opinion will be on their 
side. I would venture, however, to make the following suggestions: 


GREAT BRITAIN 49 


1. Anything which may be done must be clearly understood to be 
emergency legislation solely on account of the necessity caused by the war. 

2. There must be no singling out of special classes for unusual treatment. 

3. Full justice must be done to “the trade” and the nation must be pre- 
pared to bear any extra financial burden, though I believe that the gain, even 
from the economic point of view, will be infinitely greater than the loss. 

4. The licensed victualers should be invited to cater for the provisioning, 
particularly, of the industrial community, whose nutrition is a matter of the . 
first importance and which has been seriously interfered with by money 
spent in drink instead of food. 


On April 1, 1915, the Times said of the attitude in Sheffield: 


The total prohibition during the period of the war of the sale of excis- 
able liquors is not supported by the men who direct the great armament works 
of Sheffield. There is general agreement that no case has been made out for 
so drastic a step, and that as a means of increasing the output of munitions 
of war, it would be of very doubtful value. Complaints that work is neg- 
lected because of drink are very few, and the number of hours worked by 
the men in the shops where the pressure is high are remarkable. 


In the issue of April 7 it said that the licensed trade in Scot- 
land was to receive a deputation representative of the Scottish 
licensed trade on the drink question; that the views of the trade 
in Scotland were that total prohibition or even prohibition of the 
sale of whiskey was impracticable; and that the alternative which 
they would propose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that 
the case. would be met by drastic local restriction in the districts 
where the manufacture of munitions of war was being hampered 
by drink. The deputation also requested a meeting with the 
Labor Party, who, it is authoritatively stated, favored a restric- 
tion of hours rather than prohibition. 

On April 5 a letter to the Times demands that drink be abol- 
ished and the “pubs” converted into recreation centers for the 
rest of the war. A machinist protests against the assertions of 
drunkenness made by the Employers’ Federation in their inter- 
view with Lloyd George. He claimed only a small minority of 
munition workers drink to excess. A third writer claims that 
overpressure and overfatigue were responsible for much that 
liquor is charged with. He does not want prohibition, since the 
British people “have neither the discipline of the Germans nor the 


50 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


docility of the Russians.”” He would like to have liquor at the 
industrial plants gradually supplanted by nonalcoholic beverages. 

Commenting upon the King’s decision to abstain from the use 
of alcohol for the duration of the war, a letter in the issue of 
April 7 from Mr. R. Burbidge said: 


As illustrating the great influence of the King’s example in deciding to 
forego alcohol during the war, I am sure it will be of public interest to know 
that today all our employes who have meals on the premises have unani- 
mously offered to give up alcoholic drinks for the future. I have no doubt 
that large masses of workers all through the country will act similarly, and 
also that employers will encourage this national movement toward temper- 
ance wherever the desire for abstinence is manifested. 


In the same issue are short paragraphs from Glasgow, Shef- 
field, Liverpool, Manchester, Belfast, Windsor, Oxford and 
Edinburgh, praising the example of the King and saying that his 
example had been followed by many leading men in these towns. 

In the issue of April 15 the Times says of the licensed trade: 

Many brewers and licensed victualers, while admittedly uneasy with 
regard to the possibility of government action, decline to regard seriously 
the idea of the nationalization of the liquor trade. ... There is a general 
feeling in the licensed trade that all sense of proportion is being lost, and 


that for the remedies which are being suggested there is not the slightest 
justification. 


The people interested in the licensed trade are inclined to resent 
“the manner in which temperance advocates are exploiting the 
necessity of the moment in the interests of the cause they have 
at heart.’ They declare that it is a breach of the political truce at 
a time when the friends of the trade are fighting the country’s 
battles abroad and can not therefore defend them at home. 

An editorial in the issue of May 1, 1915, says: 


The government’s liquor scheme has, of course, raised a great hubbub, 
which can hardly be a surprise to them. . . . Drastic interference touches too 
many people in the Briton’s tenderest point—his personal liberty—not to 
arouse strong feeling. But it behooves us all to remember the circumstances 
and not to confuse these special war measures with ordinary liquor legisla- 
tion. For our own part, after reconsidering the scheme. . . we remain of 
the opinion that, as a whole, it is framed on reasonable lines; but we think 
that it needs a good deal of modification in detail. ... It is already abun- 
dantly clear that changes will be demanded. 


GREAT BRITAIN ba 


It is argued by some objectors that the taxation proposals are really 
beside the mark, and will materially interfere with large sections of the 
. population who have nothing to do with the evil which is the sole reason 
for doing anything at all. Regarded in this light, these proposals appear 
as an attempt to force “temperance” on the general public under cover of the 
war emergency, and as such they are sure to arouse widespread resentment. 


In a later issue of the Times, for December 2, 1916, a corre- 
spondent writes as follows: 


In the district where I live each villager keeps a pig or two.... Large 
numbers, too, are reared by farmers, but since, owing to the demand for 
barley for brewing, etc., the price has risen to 70s. per quarter, these pigs 
are being thrown on the market, immature and unfit for food, owing to the 
impossible price of feeding stuffs. 

Why prate of “economy in food” or shortage when this appalling waste 
is allowed to continue? 


In the issue of December 22, W. Bramwell Booth writes: 
“Why should three-fourths of the population of this country 
suffer from an insufficiency of the necessities of life in order to 
provide the other fourth with what is unnecessary?’ What folly 
it is to “use the enormous quantity of grain and sugar per 
annum—of the former about 65,000,000 bushels, and the lat- 
ter 360,000,000 pounds—in producing drink for the use of 
one-fourth of our people, and that when they do not really 
need it.” 

In all these discussions there is a noticeable tendency to dis- 
claim any temperance or prohibition proclivities. Such support 
as is given to the restriction of the sale or consumption of drink 
is based solely upon the necessities of war. From the very first 
there was a deliberate tendency to take the whole question out 
of the hands of prohibitionists and temperance advocates. Some 
of the most important official reports and documents make no 
mention of temperance societies or publications. One might 
read almost every official statement regarding drink control, and 
all that the leading newspapers published regarding it, and never 
suspect that there was or ever had been a distinct temperance 
movement in Great Britain. 

There was, however, a great deal of active propaganda going 


52 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


on by various temperance organizations. The Temperance Leg- 
islation League, representing a great many social workers, had. 
been running for several years. Its published object was to pro- 
mote temperance reform by legislation and to effect the distribu- 
tion of the licensing laws. In its Monthly Notes it began early 
in the war agitating for more strict control of the liquor trade. 
The action taken by Russia to prohibit the sale of vodka was 
widely published and commented upon. In the issue for Janu- 
ary-February, 1915, the League published an article entitled “The 
Present Opportunity,” in which it was urged that there never was 
a time when the temperance question had been so definitely forced 
upon public attention by events, and that temperance reformers 
should take advantage of that situation to bring the matter before 
the public in every possible. way. Subsequent numbers show that, 
while the men in control of public affairs seemed to ignore the 
active temperance reformers, nevertheless the active temperance 
reformers were not disposed to be ignored and were using every 
opportunity to make their influence felt. 

The Alliance News, which is the official publication of the 
United Kingdom Alliance, the largest temperance body in Eng- 
land, was likewise active in temperance propaganda and made 
large use of the necessities of war as an argument. Lord Kitche- 
ner’s personal advocacy of abstinence and the King’s voluntary 
adoption of total abstinence were kept before the people as ex- 
amples to be copied. 

Such captions as “beer or bread” were kept before the eyes of 
the public. The issue of January, 1917, contains an argument 
entitled “Hang on to Your Pigs.” The Parliamentary Secretary 
to the Board of Agriculture had apparently advised cottagers to 
keep their pigs and not sell them or slaughter them. The News, 
however, raised the question, how can the cottager hang on to his 
pigs and fatten them if the grain is to be used in the making of 
beer rather than meal? The point was that all over the country 
it had been impossible to get sufficient quantities of barley meal 
because the maltsters and brewers had bought up all that had ~ 
come to the market. The argument ends with the question, 


GREAT BRITAIN . ns) 


“Which shall be sacrificed, beer or bacon? We can not have 
both.” In the issue for May, 1917, it states that 


A plebiscite has been taken among employes of shipyards in the Clyde 
region on a resolution protesting against statements reflecting on their 
sobriety and industry in the furnishing of munitions and ships, repudiating 
the accusation that they would resent by a policy of “down tools” or other- 
wise further drastic restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquor, and 
declaring that they would welcome prohibition if, in the opinion of the 
government, it would shorten the war by a single day, and were made 
applicable to all classes. 


Early in 1916 the Spectator announced its decision not to 
admit any advertisements of intoxicants in its columns during 
the period of the war. In the issue of October 13, 1917, it said: 


They urge ... us to exercise economy, and to save every ounce of food 
we can do without, if we want to make sure of beating the Germans, but 
the word “beer” or “alcohol” is never mentioned. We are told to economize 
in meat, in milk, in cheese, in butter, in bacon, in sausages, in dog biscuit, in 
petrol, and in hundreds of other things, but one word is always missing. 
About beer or alcohol there is a complete and most successful conspiracy 
of silence. 


One of the most significant movements, however, came rela- 
tively late. It was known as the Strength of Britain Movement. 
It “was formed at a meeting of business men and others at the 
Hotel Cecil in June, 1916, when a resolution to proceed with the 
campaign for prohibition during the war was proposed by Sir 
Alfred Booth, Bart., Chairman of the Cunard Line, seconded by 
Mr. Angus Watson, supported by Mr. Thomas Burberry, and 
carried. 

The executive committee appointed at that meeting resolved 
upon two courses of action: 

1. The promotion of the Strength of Britain Memorial among men and 
women of distinction and of representative positions in all departments 
of life. 

2. The promotion of a newspaper campaign to enlighten public opinion 
as to facts. 

The Memorial has behind it an array of the brain power of the nation 
that no government can lightly set aside, but behind this demonstration of 
the intellectual opinion of the country an effort is being made to organize 


a national volume of popular opinion through newspaper appeals which 
reach millions of people; through the issue of a handbook of facts available 


54 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


at the offices for 5s. per 100, or £2 per 1,000; and through the publication 
of this book. 


One of the first acts of this organization was the publication of 
what was known as the Strength of Britain Memorial, a petition 
signed by more than 2,000,000 adult persons in England and 
Wales, more than 400,000 women in Scotland, and more than 
150,000 adult persons in the single province of Ulster in Ireland. 


AN APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN TO 
PROHIBIT THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC DURING THE WAR 


Strength of Britain Memorial 


WE, CITIZENS oF THE Unitep KINGDOM, APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT TO 
PUT THE NATION ON ITS FULL STRENGTH. 

Two grave dangers stand before us, holding back the power of early 
victory and throwing a shadow over the vision of peace. One is the wasting 
power of alcohol; the other is the imperiling of infant life. Among all the 
factors of weakness, these confront us with terrible vividness, and they lie 
within our control. With the weakening power of alcohol removed, our 
national effort against the enemy would have gathered increased strength; 
with increased strength and more rapid supplies our losses in six campaigns 
would have been substantially reduced. 

Now that the nation has followed the example of our allies in enrolling 
its full manhood, we appeal that we may range ourselves with our greatest 
allies and put on the whole armor of Britain. The power exerted by alcohol 
cuts through the efficiency of the nation; it weakens our fighting forces and 
must lengthen the war. These facts stand out concerning this powerful 
trade: 

IT HINDERS THE ARMY: it is the cause of grave delay with munitions; 
it keeps thousands of men from war work every day, and makes good, sober 
workmen second rate. 

IT HAMPERS THE NAvy: it delays transports, places them at the mercy 
of submarines, slows down repairs, and congests the docks. 

IT THREATENS OUR MERCANTILE MARINE: it has absorbed during the war 
over 200,000,000 cubic feet of space, and it retards the building of ships to 
replace our losses. 

IT DESTROYS OUR FOOD SUPPLIES: since the war began it has consumed 


1From page 4 of Defeat or Victory, the Strength of Britain Book, by 
Arthur Mee and J. Stuart Holden, published for the Strength of Britain 
Movement, London, and reprinted in the United States by the American Issue 
Publishing Company, Westerville, Ohio. First edition, January, 1917; second 
edition, February, 1917. 


GREAT BRITAIN 55) 


over 3,500,000 tons of food, with sugar enough to last the nation 100 days.. 
It uses up more sugar than the army. 

IT WASTES OUR FINANCIAL STRENGTH: since the war began our people have 
spent on alcohol over £400,000,000 (sterling). 

If DIVERTS THE NATION’S STRENGTH: it uses 500,000 workers, 1,000,000 
acres of land, and 1,500,000 tons of coal a year; and during the war it has 
involved the lifting and handling on road and rail of a weight equal to 
50,000,000 tons. 

IT SHATTERS OUR MORAL STRENGTH: its temptations to women involve 
grave danger to children and anxiety to thousands of soldiers. 

The serious facts concerning the effects of drink on our forces have 
been known since the early days of the war, and military and naval officials 
appointed to investigate them pressed strongly for instant decision. During 
the eighteen months since then the government appointed the Board of 
Control, but its work, successfully socially, has had little effect in the great 
industries on which our armies rely. Here the terrible truth of eighteen 
months ago is still terribly true; the men in the trenches are betrayed by 
an enemy at home. After all that has been done, the loss of time on the 
Clyde is reduced from 20 to 19 per cent; men earning a good week’s wage 
in half a week abandon work for drinking, and those men who give their 
best to the nation, striving nobly to undo the injury of their weaker com- 
rades, are powerless in this cruel grip. It is not drunkenness alone, how- 
ever, but the constant sapping of one’s energies by alcohol, that endangers 
our supplies of munitions. 

Nearly two years have passed since the King banished this source of 
national weakness from his household; since engineers, manufacturers of 
explosives, admirals, directors of naval equipment, urged the government to 
banish it from the nation; since the Director of Transports appealed for 
the withdrawal of all drink licenses for the sake of the army and navy; and 
since the Shipbuilders’ Federation declared that “with the total abolition of 
drink the work would go with a swing, and you would get as fine work 
in our yards and shops as in the trenches. 

Yet the alcohol brake is still on our workshops. 

As it is impossible to estimate the disastrous naval, military, social and 
economic consequences of alcohol in this crisis, so it is impossible to exag- 
gerate the good results of its removal. In towns under the Control Board, 
chiefs of police are glowing in their praise of peaceful towns and quiet 
streets at night; the London Sessions following the adoption of the order 
were the shortest ever known, and several prisons have been closed since 
the Board began its work. Yet, though the general drinking hours have 
been suddenly cut down to two short periods a day, there has been no serious 
complaint, and we commend this as proof of the readiness of the people 
to accept war restrictions and to share in a common sacrifice. 

We are convinced that the dangers confronting us arise from the sudden 
possession of abundant wages rather than from a lack of patriotic feeling; 
untrained in spending or in thrift, large numbers of our workers waste 
their reserves in drink. The greatest good a government can render to its 


56 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


people is to strengthen their right purposes and weaken the power of their 
temptations, and there lies upon us now the double duty of protecting our 
people from the temptation to drink away their earnings, and of protecting 
the state from the intolerable folly of high war wages turned to the adyan- 
tage of our enemies. 4 

With the resources of the nation taxed to their utmost, the waste of 
£500,000 (sterling) a day on alcohol is a fact of pitiful significance. With 
their high wages our people dig pits of sorrow instead of building up 
reserves of power and independence; children die faster of neglect, and a 
city missionary has forty appeals from the trenches to look after wives 
“going wrong” through drink. 

If it is said we need the revenue the state derives from alcohol, the 
answer lies in these things. No nation can make a profit from such a trade 
as this. But the fear of revenue is shattered by the noble action of our 
allies and dominions; of Russia, which has prohibited vodka; of France, which 
has prohibited absinthe and the sale of spirits to women, soldiers and young 
people; and of parts of our dominions, especially in Canada, where the sale 
of alcohol is rapidly disappearing, followed by the closing of prisons and 
the quickening-up of life. 

Russia, wanting strength and money too, has found both in prohibition. 
The saving power of her people has risen from shillings to pounds. The 
banks that received £180,000 (sterling) in January before the war, received 
in January, 1915, £5,600,000 (sterling), and in January, 1916, £12,000,000 
(sterling). The industrial efficiency of Russia has increased by 30 per cent, 
and an increase of 10 per cent in our efficiency would replace our revenue 
from drink. 

But against all considerations of financial sacrifice must be set the 
threatened loss of our mercantile supremacy at sea. Unless we can replace 
our lost ships, our supremacy is doomed, and victory in the field must find 
us bereft of the chief factor of our national prosperity. The cargoes car- 
ried for the drink trade by our war time ships have been about 2,000,000 
tons, and the same cause that reduces our shipping reduces our capacity 
for repairing and replacing our lost carrying power at sea. The contemplation 
of these things while neutral nations are building fleets must give rise to 
the gravest apprehension. 

More serious still is the peril of the child-life of the state. It is perishing 
faster than in times of peace. Our brave ally, France, with the enemy almost 
at the gates of Paris, won for itself the enduring distinction of the lowest 
infant death rate ever recorded in its capital. What Paris can do can be 
done in our towns if the same patriotic devotion be shown by our own 
people, and if all removable dangers be removed. Chief among these dangers 
is alcohol. ( 

No source of weakness under our control is so widespread; none is 
more vital to the safety of the state in war and its welfare in peace. But 
the dangers of alcohol are tenfold now. The prevalence of venereal disease 
among one-tenth of our urban population, its special danger to child-life, and 
the anxiety with which we must contemplate its wide extension as one of 


GREAT BRITAIN Ws 


the terrible gifts of peace, impose upon us an increasing responsibility. In 
1912 over 270,000 working days were lost in the navy from this cause, and 
216,000 days in the army; and the Royal Commission has urged that a de- 
crease of drinking would be an important factor in the decrease of this 
far-reaching cause of national decay. 

It is not to be questioned that in all these causes for apprehension, alco- 
hol is the greatest single factor that can be controlled. It is not to be 
questioned that the nation has readily approved the halfway step to prohibi- 
tion that has already been taken. It is our profound conviction that the 
next step must be taken before the strength of Britain can be thrown effect- 
ively into the arena on which our liberties depend. No nation can be at 
full strength with such a factor in its midst. 

We are no temperance reformers as such. We stand for the great desire 
of all good people to strike the mightiest blow for freedom of which Britain 
is capable. We support the demand for prohibition made to the govern- 
ment by its own investigators, and by the shipbuilders’ deputation, with not 
a teetotaler among them, in March, 1915. Believing in the Prime Minister’s 
words, that “no sacrifice is too great when freedom and honor are at stake,” 
and that rich and poor alike should bear it, we ask the government to with- 
draw all drink licenses throughout the Kingdom for the period of the war. 

We believe a golden moment has arrived for our country; that, prepared 
for sacrifice by the example of the King and Lord Kitchener, the nation is 
ready for the natural step that France and Russia have already taken; the 
suspension of the liquor traffic during the war, the conversion of the public 
houses into houses of refreshment, will quicken up our civil and fighting 
populations, will raise a new fire of resolution in our people, and will give 
to millions the first opportunity they have ever had of breaking old habits 
of weakness and forming new habits of strength. 

We believe that in this, as in all other vital issues, there must be sym- 
pathy of purpose and unity of action between the Allied nations; and we 
appeal to the government to be bold and trust our people, to be strong and 
follow our allies, to be worthy of the mighty destinies they hold in solemn 
trust. 


This appeal was signed by vast numbers of influential per- 
sons representing the British army and navy, the controllers and 
directors of the munitions of war, the Privy Council, both houses 
of Parliament, representatives of the public services, trade, com- 
merce and industry, artists, educators, physicians, scientists, mu- 
sicians and dramatists, as well as the representatives of all phases 
of social service. 

One of the most significant publications which the liquor agita- 
tion produced was first issued under the title Defeat by Mr. 
Arthur Mee and J. Stuart Holden. The first edition of 100.000 


58 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


copies was sold in twenty days. It was a very severe and uncom- 
promising attack upon the government for its negligence in the 
matter of liquor control. A storm of protest arose, however, 
against the title of the pamphlet, namely, Defeat. It was 
feared that it presented too dark a picture and that it might 
weaken the morale of the nation. Accordingly, a second edition 
was produced called Defeat or Victory, in which the alterna- 
tive was at least presented, though the argument still went to 
show that the continued destruction of man power through 
drunkenness, and of food through manufacture of the material 
that makes men drunk, were both working toward defeat. Asa 
bit of effective pamphleteering, it has had few, if any, equals 
during the present war. A list of the chapter headings will give 
some indication as to its scope. The method, however, is that 
of an emotional appeal rather than of strictly scientific argument. 
After making due allowance for exaggeration and effective 
phrase making, there is little in the argument that is contrary to 
the findings of scientific students. One of the joint authors of 
this book, Mr. Arthur Mee, is said by the New York Times to 
be the most energetic and influential prohibitionist in England. 
In another work entitled The Fiddlers, he states that during 
the week ending May 19, 1917: 


1. Submarines destroyed 27 British cargoes, mostly over 1,600 tons. 
Brewers destroyed 27 British food cargoes, totaling 9,000 tons. 

2. The granaries of Canada were crammed with wheat waiting for 
British ships. The rum quay at London docks were crammed with casks 
of rum, but a ship arrived with 1,000 casks more. 

3. A woman was fined five pounds for destroying a quartern loaf. Brewers 
were fined nothing for destroying millions of loaves. 

4. Poor people waited in queues to buy sugar in London. Cartloads of 
sugar were destroyed in London breweries. 


To keep up the bane, the government acts as follows: 


1. It tells Parliament that no more rum is to be imported and goes on 
importing rum for years ahead. 

2. It forbids the use of spirits less than three years old and reduces the 
three years to eighteen months. 

3. It restricts beer to 10,000,000 barrels and tells us one day that it is 
all-inclusive and the next that the Army Council can order as much extra 
beer as it likes. 


GREAT BRITAIN 59 


4. It says hops are not food, and gives up hundreds of thousands of feet 
to shipping them; 23,000 cubic feet the other week. 

5. It tells us not an inch of shipping is wasted, and wastes shipping on 
brewers’ vats from America and gin to Africa. 


Mr. Mee denies the following statements by Kennedy Jones: 


1. That only five per cent of malt can be mixed with flour for bread. 
2. That barley destroyed would give the nation only ten days’ bread. 
3. That munitions workers are dependent on beer. 


These are quoted as examples of the kind of propaganda which 
was being carried on in favor of the more drastic policy of 
liquor control. On the other hand, there was considerable pro- 
test against government interference with the ancient and honor- 
able trade of manufacturing and selling liquor. 

In the New York Times for April 30, 1915, is an article stating 
that the clergy comprising the Lower House of the Convocation 
of Canterbury were willing to set an example of abstinence, but 
were not willing to abstain entirely from alcohol; that the Lower 
House passed a “resolution inviting the clergy and laity of the 
Church of England to set an example of self-sacrifice” in the 
matter of alcoholic liquors; and that several members voted only 
after being assured that total abstinence was not expected of 
them. 

The New York Times for May 1, 1915, says that Lloyd 
George’s proposal to increase the duty on alcoholic drinks is pro- 
tested from all parts of the country, and his proposals “have 
received little support outside the immediate government circles.” 
It says that temperance advocates are dissatisfied because total 
prohibition was not proposed, while distillers, brewers, saloon 
and hotel keepers have held meetings of protest, and in many 
places have decided upon an immediate increase in prices. Ire- 
land is particularly disturbed, since she thinks that an adoption 
of Lloyd George’s proposals would spell ruin to brewers, licensed 
traders and farmers who have sown barley in large quantities 
this year. 

On May 4 the Times states that the Allied Brewery Trades 
Association, composed of those trades which supply machinery 


60 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


and other materials to brewers, adopted resolutions at a meeting 
in London condemning Lloyd George’s plan for restricting the 
liquor trade. The resolutions say that the plan is designed to 
satisfy only the extreme prohibition faction and “has none but 
political objects, against which we will protest with every means 
in our power.” It states further that the retail liquor dealers in 
London have united in a protest against the proposed increased 
taxation on spirits, wines and beers. They claim drunkenness 
has decreased in London during the war and that “it would be 
an act of the grossest injustice to penalize its millions of inhab- 
itants because in some distant parts of the country the conduct 
of a few workers is complained of.” 

In the Fortnightly Review for May, 1915, Mr. H. J. Jennings 
says that the United Kingdom spends £100,000,000 a year on 
beer and £50,000,000 on spirits, while wine and cider account 
for about £12,000,000; that the annual revenue from alcoholic 
drinks — import, manufacture and sale — is £72,000,000; that 
Russia has lost over £70,000,000 a year because of prohibition, 
just when her war expenditure was £2,000,000 daily; that Eng- 
land’s heavy taxes on beer and spirits are threatening the exist- 
ence of the liquor industry, and that added taxes will destroy it 
and remove a great source of revenue to the government. 

In an article on “Drink and the War,” in the Nineteenth Cen- 
tury magazine for May, 1915, Mr. Lathbary says that it is not 
proven that drinking has held back the production of munitions, 
but that this condition is due rather to industrial causes and 
shortage of labor resulting from enlistments; that “the real cause 
of the scarcity of munitions is probably the unwillingness or 
inability of the government to treat labor for military purposes 
as one great whole’; that a British man had a right to drink 
when he feels like it, and that “a compulsorily sober England 
will not be a free England!’ He also states that prohibiting 
wines would only injure the revenue of France who is our ally. 

The Alliance News for December, 1915, says that on Novem- 
ber 26 a great demonstration of the liquor retailers was held in 
the London Pavilion to protest against the Control Board’s new 


GREAT BRITAIN 61 


order for London. The chairman complained that any attempt 
to alter the hours of “this ancient and useful trade” should be 
fought out on the floor of the House of Commons. Secondly, 
the Board was partial. Thirdly, the Board’s action constituted 
undue and petty interference. He moved this resolution: © 


This meeting of the Retail Licensed Trade of the Metropolis strongly 
protests against the drastic new liquor restrictions imposed by the Central 
Control Board (Liquor Traffic) in the London area, on the grounds that 
they are unnecessary and unjustifiable; that they are calculated to arouse 
the indignation and resentment of the masses, who are being deprived of 
their rights and privileges under cover of the war for no useful purpose 
whatever; that they involve serious inconvenience and discomfort to all 
classes at a time of great physical and mental strain when any form of 
compulsion is all the more objectionable and dangerous; and that they will 
inflict needless injustice upon a loyal, necessary, and legitimate trade without 
in any way tending to achieve success in the great national struggle in which 
our empire is engaged. 

Referring to the order of the Board restricting the liquor 
traffic in the London area, the same issue of the Alliance News 
says that on November 26 a trade union deputation calls on 
the Central Control Board. One delegate says, “I have heard 
the expression used on buildings by men who have sons fighting 
at the front that there are a number of vacant lamp posts in 
Whitehall. That is an expression of opinion, but if this order 
does become operative, it is going to engender a feeling stronger 
than that!’ Whereupon the members of the Board smiled! 
Another delegate said, “I, for one, feel so strongly over this that 
if we have got to have it, and if the resistance results in my being 
led to gaol, I am willing to go. I promise you, in that event, 
unless you lock us all up, one of the most tremendous agitations 
that ever convulsed this metropolis. . . . Speaking for many 
thousands in this country, as well as myself, I say to you: By 
God, we will give you the hardest and bitterest fight you have 
ever had before we submit to your abominable despotism.” 

Lord D’Abernon replied in very courteous terms. He re- 
gretted that “the speeches had been rather barren of practical 
suggestions.” He said the measures were not punitive, but cal- 
culated to increase efficiency, and that the Board did not intend 


62 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


to close the public houses, but only to restrict hours of sale. 
He said: 


In no single area where these orders, or orders similar to them, have 
been in force has there been a single voice of protest from any worker; 
and, I think, if you will inquire, you will find that the large majority of the 
steady workmen in those areas welcome the order enthusiastically. 


He concluded: 


It is quite out of our power to meet you on the general withdrawal of 
the order. That is out of the question. But the Board have always been, 
and are, ready to consider sympathetically any special exemptions or arrange- 
ments that may be necessary, and that can be shown to be just and fair to 
the general interest in order to meet the abnormal conditions of particular 
trades. 


In the Fortnightly Review for January, 1916, Mr. H. J. Jen- 
nings quotes police court figures to prove that the greatest per 
cent of intemperance does not exist among munition workers. 
He admits, however, that his figures are not conclusive. He 
claims that increased sobriety will cover only the cost of less 
revenue from excise duties, and concludes by saying that added 
restrictions on the industry will ruin it and the taxpayers will 
have to make good the loss, that beer is a food and necessary, and 
that drunkards form only a very small per cent of the workers. 

The New York Times for February 16, 1916, says that the 
movement for “practical prohibition during the war’’ will receive 
little support from the established Church, according to the Con- 
vocation of the Archbishop of Canterbury held in London Feb- 
ruary 15, 1916; that the House favors “moderation and self- 
denial” but not prohibition. It also quotes from Athelstan Riley, 
a prolific writer on religious topics, to the effect that drink re- 
formers always go too far, and that alcohol itself is not an evil, 
being one of the “good creatures of God,” and only evil when 
used to excess. 


CHAPTER III 


What Was Done by the Government—The Repression 
of Drunkenness 


The conditions described in Chapter I and the agitated state 
of the public mind as described in Chapter II made it necessary 
that the government should do something about it. A govern- 
ment which is responsible to the people can never go very far 
in the carrying out of any policy, however wise, unless the people 
are behind it. Whatever the government or its responsible min- 
isters may have thought about the effects of this vast trade in 
alcoholic liquors upon the efficiency of a nation at war, it must 
of necessity wait upon public opinion. Public opinion, however, 
as expressed through its constituted organs, the newspapers, 
seems to have been very much divided. So many contradictory 
opinions were expressed as to make it well nigh impossible to 
forecast its real verdict upon the question of liquor control. The 
only thing which seemed clear was that the government must do 
something about it. 

The machinery of legislation in England is such as to prevent 
hasty action and insure thorough consideration, giving people 
of every shade of opinion an opportunity to express themselves 
and to make their influence felt. 

In such a crisis as that which was thrust upon England in 
August, 1914, however, the fate of the nation depended upon 
prompt action. How to secure promptness and at the same time 
preserve responsibility to the people was a question of the utmost 
importance. Parliament was too large a body to act promptly; 
besides, parliamentary debates are not only long winded but cal- 
culated to acquaint the enemy with the internal conditions of the 
country. As on all such occasions, the problem was solved by 
giving unusual powers to some administrative office or organiza- 
tion, such as the King in Council or to the Privy Council, as it 

63 


64 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


is generally known. In such cases the Privy Council is, in theory, 
empowered to take such measures upon the prescribed topics as 
seem to it wise. In fact, it is the Cabinet representing the party 
in power which acts, though it acts in the name of the King in’ 
Council. 

In the following pages we shall attempt to trace various steps 
in the development of liquor control by the British Government. 

War was declared on August 4, 1914. On the same day was 
issued a Defense of the Realm Proclamation calling upon all 
loyal subjects to obey and conform to all instructions and regu- 
lations which might be issued by the government or the Ad- 
miralty or Army Council or any officer of the navy or army, 
for securing the public safety and the defense of the realm. 

Four days later, August 8, Parliament passed the first of a 
series of Defense of the Realm Acts conferring upon the King 
in Council power to issue regulations for securing public safety 
and the defense of the realm. 

The first of the regulations authorized by this act which were 
directed toward the control of the drink trade was issued August 
12. Section 7/iseads: 

The competent naval or military authority may by order require all 
premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor within or in the neigh- 


borhood of any defended harbor to be closed except during such hours as 
may be specified in the order.1 


This was extended on November 28, 1914, as follows: 


The competent naval or military authority may by order require all 
or any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor within any area 
specified in the order to be closed except during such hours and for such 
purposes as may be specified in the order, either generally or as respects the 
members of any of his Majesty's forces mentioned in the order, and if the 
holder of the license in respect of any such premises fails to comply with 
the order, he shall be guilty of an offense under these regulations, and the 
competent naval or military authority may cause such steps to be taken as 
may be necessary to enforce compliance with the order.? 


1From “The Defense of the Realm Regulations,’ 1914, as contained in 
the Manual of Emergency Legislation to September 30, 1914, page 147. 

2From “The Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations,” 1914, 
Section 10, as contained in Manual of Emergency Legislation, Supplement 
2, page 107 


GREAT BRITAIN 65 


The additions are italicized. 

The next stage in the development of legislative control was 
the enactment on August 31, 1914, of what is known as the 
Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Control) Act, 1914, giving the 
licensing justices power to suspend the license of any retailer, and 
to stop the consumption of liquor in any club, whenever it was 
deemed necessary for the maintenance of order and the suppres- 
sion of drunkenness. 

The act reads as follows: 


INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT, 
19141 


An Act to enable orders to be made in connection with the present war for 
restricting the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor. (31st August, 
1914.) 


Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the 
advice and consent of thé Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in 
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as 
follows: 


1. (1) The licensing justices for any licensing district may, if they think 
fit, upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police that it is desirable 
for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area, 
by order direct that the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the 
premises of any persons holding any retailers’ license in the area, and the 
supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor in any registered club in the 
area, shall be suspended while the order is in operation, during such hours 
and subject to such conditions or exceptions (if any) as may be specified in 
the order: 

Provided that, if any such order suspends the sale, supply, or consump- 
tion of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine at night, the order 
shall not have effect until approved by the Secretary of State. 

(2) If any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any 
order under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect 
of each offense ,to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds. If any person feels 
aggrieved by a conviction under this section he may appeal therefrom to 
quarter sessions in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. 

(3) The licensing justices shall have power to make an order under this 
section at their general annual licensing meeting or at any special sessions 
held by them for the purpose of their duties under the Licensing (Consolida- 
tion) Act, 1910, or at any meeting specially called for the purpose under 
this act. 


14 & 5 Geo. V, c. 77, page 390. 


66 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


The clerk to the licensing justices shall specially call such a meeting if 
an application in writing is made to him for the purpose either by any two 
of their number or by the chief officer of police for the district. 

(4) In the application of this section to: the county of London the com- 
mittee of the compensation authority appointed under section six of the 
Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, shall be substituted for the licensing 
justices. 

2. (1) In this act the expression “retailers’ license” means any of the 
retailers’ licenses specified in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909-1910) 
Act, 1910, and the expression “chief officer of police’— 


(a) with respect to the city of London, means the Commissioner of 
the City Police; and 

(b) elsewhere in England, has the same meaning as in the Police 
Act, 1890. 


(2) In the application of this act to Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland 
shall be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the licensing court 
shall be substituted for the licensing justices, and the general half-yearly 
meeting of the court, or any adjournment thereof, shall be substituted for 
the general annual licensing meeting; “sheriff-depute”’ shall be substituted 
for “chief officer of police’; the reference to an appeal to quarter sessions 
shall not apply; “summary conviction” means summary conviction in the 
sheriff court; “intoxicating liquor” means excisable liquor, and “retailers” 
license” means certificate as defined in Part VII of the Licensing (Scotland) 
Act, 1903. 

(3) In the application of this act to Ireland the Lord Lieutenant shall 
be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the expression “licensing dis- 
trict” means, as respects the police district of Dublin metropolis, that district, 
and elsewhere in Ireland the petty sessions district. The expression “chief 
officer of police’ means, as respects the police district of Dublin metropolis, 
either of the commissioners of police for that district, and elsewhere in 
Ireland, a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the ex- 
pression “licensing justices” means, as respects the police district of Dublin 
metropolis, the Recorder of the city of Dublin, and, as respects any other 
licensing district, two or more justices at petty sessions. 

(4) This act may be cited as the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Re- 
striction) Act, 1914. 

(5) This act shall remain in force during the continuance of the present 
war, and for a period of one month after the close thereof. 


The third stage in the government control of the liquor trade 
was reached when Parliament gave the Council, that is, in effect, 
the Cabinet, a free hand to deal with the question as it saw fit. 
The various Defense of the Realm Acts had been consolidated 
on November 27, 1914. On May 19, 1915, that act was ex- 


GREAT BRITAIN 67 


tended so as to give the Council power specifically to issue regu- 
lations for the control of the trade in intoxicating liquor. 
The following is a text of the act: 


AN ACT TO EXTEND THE DEFENSE OF THE REALM 
CONSOLIDATION ACT, 19142 


(19th May, 1915) 
State Controt or Liguor TrRapE in CERTAIN AREAS 


1. (1) Where it appears to his Majesty that it is expedient for the 
purpose of the successful prosecution of the present war that the sale and 
supply of intoxicating liquor in any area should be controlled by the state, 
on the ground that war material is being made or loaded or unloaded or 
dealt with in transit in the area or that men belonging to his Majesty’s 
naval or military forces are assembled in the area, his Majesty has power, 
by Order in Council, to define the area and to apply to the area the regula 
tions issued in pursuance of this act under the Defense of the Realm Con- 
solidation Aci, 1914, and the regulations so applied shall, subject to any 
provisions oi the order or any amending order, take effect in that area 
during the continuance of the present war and such period not exceeding 
twelve months thereaiter as may be declared by Order in Council to be 
necessary in view of conditions connected with the termination of the present 
war. 

(2) His Majesty in Council has power to issue regulations under the 
Defense of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, to take effect in any area 
to which they are applied under this act: 


(a) for giving the prescribed government authority, to the exclusion 
of any other person, the power of selling or supplying, or controlling the 
sale or supply of, intoxicating liquor in the area, subject to any exceptions 
contained in the regulations; and 

(b) for giving the prescribed government authority power to acquire, 
compulsorily or by agreement, and either for the period during which 
the regulations take effect, or permanently, any licensed or other premises 
or business in the area, or any interest therein, so far as it appears neces- 
Sary or expedient to do so for the purpose of giving proper effect to 
the control oi the liquor supply in the area; and 

(c) for enabling the prescribed government authority, without any 
license, to establish and maintain refreshment rooms for the supply of 
reireshments (including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquor) 
to the general public or to any particular class of persons or to persons 
employed in any particular industry in the area; and 

(d) for making any modification or adjustment of the relations be- 


1 Public General Acts 5 & 6 Geo. V, page 79. 


68 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


tween persons interested in licensed premises in the area which appears 
' mecessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations; and 
(e) generally, for giving effect to the transfer of the control of the 
liquor traffic in the area to the prescribed government authority, and 
for modifying, so far as it appears necessary or expedient, the provisions 
of the acts relating to licensing or the sale of intoxicating liquor in 
their application to the area. 


(3) Any regulations made before the passing of this act under the 
powers conferred by any act dealing with the Defense of the Realm as 
respects the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquor are hereby declared 
to have been duly made in accordance with those powers. 


SHort TITLE 


2. This act may be cited as the Defense of the Realm (Amendment) 
(No. 3) Act, 1915. 


It will be observed that this act gave the “King in Council,” 
that is, in effect the Cabinet, power by Order in Council, to regu- 
late the liquor traffic in certain prescribed areas and on certain 
specified grounds. It will be further noticed that the “Council” 
(the Cabinet) was not compelled to act directly in the matter but 
might act through “the prescribed government authority.” This 
prescribed government authority might be empowered by the 
Cabinet 


(a) to take over the liquor business as a government monopoly within 
prescribed areas. 

(b) to take possession of any property or premises used in the liquor 
business. 

(c) to run refreshment rooms. 

(d) to modify the terms of the existing regulations applying to the 
liquor trade. 

(e) to do practically anything else necessary to give effect to this control 
or regulation. 


The prescribed government authority was not named in the 
act. The Council (Cabinet) was apparently left free to empower 
some existing branch of the government to take over the control 
of the liquor business, or to create a new branch for that purpose. 
It chose the latter alternative and created a board which is offi- 
cially known as the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic). 
Hereafter in this monograph it will be called the Board. 


GREAT BRITAIN 69 


The text of the Order in Council creating this Board follows:* 


THE DEFENSE OF THE REALM (LIQUOR CONTROL) 
REGULATIONS, 1915 


1915. No. 552 


At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 10th day of June, 1915 
Present, 
The King’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council 


Whereas, By the Defense of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, his 
Majesty in Council has power during the continuance of the present war to 
issue regulations for securing the public safety and defense of the realm; 
and 

Whereas, By the Defense of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 
1915, his Majesty in Council has power to issue regulations under the first- 
.mentioned act, to take effect in any area to which they are applied under 
the said Amendment Act, for the purposes of the control by the state of the 
sale and supply of intoxicating liquor within the area; and 

Whereas, For the purpose of increasing directly or indirectly the effi- 
ciency of labor in such areas, and preventing the efficiency of labor in such 
areas from being impaired by drunkenness, alcoholism, or excess, it is expe- 
dient to make such regulations as are hereinafter contained; 

Now, therefore, his Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of his 
Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that in every area to which 
these regulations are applied by an Order in Council made under the De- 
fense of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, the following provisions 
shall have effect: 

1. The prescribed government authority shall be a Board to be called the 
Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) hereinafter referred to as “the 
Board,” consisting of a chairman and such persons as the Minister of 
Munitions may from time to time appoint. 

The quorum of the Board shall be such as the Board may determine, and 
the Board may regulate their own procedure, and no act or proceeding of 
the Board shall be questioned on account of any vacancy in the Board. 

The Board may sue and be sued, and shall have an official seal which 
shall be officially and judicially noticed, and such seal shall be authenticated 
by any two members of the Board or the Secretary to the Board. 

The Board may appoint a secretary and such officers, inspectors and 
servants for the purpose of these regulations as the Board, subject to the 
approval of the Treasury as to number, may determine. 

Every document purporting to be an order or other instrument issued 
by the Board and to be sealed with the seal of the Board authenticated in 
manner provided by these regulations, or to be signed by the Secretary to 
the Board or any person authorized by the Board to act on behalf of the 
Secretary, shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such an order 
or instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown. 


1In the Manual of Emergency Legislation, Supplement 4, page 167. 


70 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Any property acquired by the Board shall be vested in such two or more 
members of the Board as the Board may appoint to act as trustees on their 
behalf for the purpose, and upon the death, resignation, or removal of a 
trustee the property vested in that trustee shall, without conveyance or assign- 
ment, and whether the property is real or personal, vest in the succeeding 
trustees either solely or together with any surviving or continuing trustees, 
and, until the appointment of succeeding trustees, shall so vest in the surviy- 
ing or succeeding trustee only; and in all legal proceedings whatsoever con- 
cerning any property vested in the trustees the property may be stated to be 
the property of the trustees in their proper names as trustees for the Board 
without further description. 

2. For the purposes of the control of the sale and supply of intoxicating 
liquor in any area, the Board may by order— 

(a) direct that any licensed premises or club in the area in which 
intoxicating liquor is sold by retail or supplied shall be closed either 
for all purposes or for.the purpose of such sale or supply; 

(b) regulate the hours during which any such premises or clubs 
are to be or may be kept open distinguishing, where it is so determined, 
between the hours during which the premises are to be or may be kept 
open for such sale or supply as aforesaid, and the hours during which they 
are to be or may be kept open for other purposes, and any such order shall 
have effect notwithstanding anything in the law relating to licensing or 
the sale of intoxicating liquor; 

(c) prohibit the sale by retail or supply of any specified class or 
description of intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises or club in the 
area; 

(d) provide that the sale by retail or supply of intoxicating liquor 
in any licensed premises or club in the area shall be subject to such 
conditions or restrictions as may be imposed by the order; 

(e) regulate the introduction of intoxicating liquor into the area 
and the transport of intoxicating liquor within the area; 

(f) require the business carried on in any licensed premises in the 
area to be carried on subject to the supervision of the Board; 

and any such order may include such incidental and supplemental provisions 
as appear to the Board necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to 
the order, and may be made applicable to all licensed premises and clubs 
within the area or any specified class or description of such premises and 
clubs, or to any particular premises or club. 

If any person contravenes the provisions of any such order, or any con- 
ditions or restrictions imposed thereby, he shall be guilty of a summary 
offense against the Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914. 

3. The Board may by order prohibit the sale by retail, or the supply in 
clubs or licensed premises, of intoxicating liquor within the area, or any 
part thereof specified in the order, by any person other than the Board, and 
if any person contravenes or fails to comply with the order he shall, without 
prejudice to any other penalty, be guilty of a summary offense against the 
Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914. 


GREAT BRITAIN 71 


Provided that the order may except from the provisions thereof any 
specified class or classes of premises or clubs. 

4. The Board may by order make such provisions as they think necessary 
for the prevention of the practice of treating within the area, and if any 
person contravenes the provisions of any such order he shall be guilty of 
a summary offense against the Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Regu- 
lations, 1914. 

5. The Board may either themselves or through any agents establish and 
maintain in the area, or provide for the establishment and maintenance in 
the area of, refreshment rooms for the sale or supply of refreshments 
(including, if thought fit, the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor) to the 
general public, or to any particular class of persons, or to persons employed 
in any particular industry in the area. 

6. Where the Board consider that it is necessary or expedient for the 
purpose of giving proper effect to the control of the liquor supply in the 
area, they may acquire compulsorily or by agreement, either for the period 
during which these regulations take effect or permanently, any licensed or 
other premises in the area, or any interest in any such premises: 

Provided that the Board may, in lieu of acquiring any interest in such 
premises, take possession of the premises and any plant used for the purposes 
of the business carried on therein for all or any part of the period during 
which these regulations take effect, and use them for the sale or supply 
of intoxicating liquor or for the purpose of any of the other powers and 
duties of the Board. 

7. Where the Board determine to acquire compulsorily any premises or 
any interest therein, they shall serve on the occupier of the premises and, 
if any person other than the occupier will be affected by the acquisition of 
the interest proposed to be acquired, also on any person who appears to the 
Board to be so affected, notice of their intention to acquire the premises, 
or such interest therein as may be specified in the notice, and where such a 
notice is served, the fee simple in possession of the premises or such interest 
in the premises as aforesaid shall, at the expiration of ten days from the 
service of the notice on the occupier, by virtue of these regulations vest in 
the trustees for the Board, subject to or freed from any mortgages, rights, 
and interests affecting the same as the Board may by order direct. 

On any premises or any interest therein becoming so vested in the trustees 
for the Board the trustees may— 

(a) if the title to the premises is registered under the Land Registry 

Act, 1862, or the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, enter a caveat or 

caution to prevent their estate or interest from being impaired by any act 

of the registered proprietor; and 
(b) if the premises are situate in an area where registration of title 
is compulsory lodge a caution against registration of the premises; and 
(c) if the premises are within the jurisdiction of the acts relating to 

Tegistration of assurances in Middlesex and Yorkshire register in Middle- 

sex a memorial of the notice, and in Yorkshire an affidavit of ‘vesting 

against the name of every person whose estate or interest is affected, 
and in Middlesex any such notice shall be deemed a conveyance. 


72 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


A copy of the minutes of the Board to the effect that a notice has been 
served in accordance with this regulation, certified by the secretary to the 
Board, or by any person authorized by the Board to act on behalf of the 
secretary, to be a true copy, shall be evidence that the premises or interest 
therein mentioned in the minutes have become vested in the trustees for 
the Board. 

8. Where the Board consider that it is necessary or expedient for the 
purpose of giving proper effect to the control of the liquor traffic in the area 
they may, by the like procedure, acquire any business (including stock in 
trade) carried on in any premises within the area, whether or not they take 
possession of or acquire the premises in which such business is carried on, 
or any interest in the premises. 

9. The Board may, without any license (whether justices’ or excise, and 
whether for the sale of intoxicating liquor or otherwise), carry on in any 
premises occupied by them any business involving the sale or supply of in- 
toxicating liquor, refreshments or tobacco, and for that purpose shall not be 
subject to any of the provisions of the law relating to licensing, or to any 
restrictions imposed by law on persons carrying on such business. 

Any person appointed by the Board to conduct any business on their be- 
half shall have, to such extent as they may be conferred by the Board, the 
same powers as the Board of carrying on business without a license, but all 
such persons shall in all other respects, except in such cases and to such 
extent as the Board may otherwise order, be subject to the statutory pro- 
visions affecting the holders of licenses, and the occupiers of premises 
licensed, for any such business as aforesaid, in like manner as if they were 
the holders of the appropriate licenses, and to any restrictions imposed by 
law on persons carrying on any such business as aforesaid. 

10. The Board shall have power, on any premises in which business is 
carried on by them or on their behalf, to provide or authorize the provision 
of such entertainment or recreation for persons frequenting the premises as 
the Board think fit, and where such provision is made or such authority is 
given no license shall be necessary, and no restrictions imposed by law on the 
provision of the entertainment or recreation in question shall apply, excent 
to such extent, if any, as the Board may direct. 

11. Arrangements may be made by the Board with the Postmaster General 
and any other person for affording postal and banking facilities on or near 
premises in which business is carried on by or on behalf of the Board to 
persons frequenting such premises. 

12. Where, by any conditions or restrictions imposed by the Board on the 
sale of spirits, the sale of any spirit is prohibited unless the strength of the 
spirit is reduced to a number of degrees under proof which falls between 
such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified, or where by any 
order of the Board the sale of spirit so reduced is permitted, section six of 
the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1879, shall within the area have effect, as 
respects that spirit, as if the maximum number of degrees under proof so 
specified were substituted for the number mentioned in that section. 

13. All obligations under covenant, contract, or otherwise, to which the 


GREAT BRITAIN 73 


holder of a license or the occupier of licensed premises is subject, and which 
the provisions of these regulations or any action of the Board taken there- 
under make it impossible for him to fulfil, or which are inconsistent with any 
conditions or restrictions imposed by the Board, shall be suspended so long 
as such impossibility or such conditions or restrictions continue, and shall 
not be binding during that period. 

14. Where by virtue of any action taken by the Board under these regu- 
lations the holder of any license is temporarily prevented from carrying on 
his business as the holder of such license, the license shall be suspended, and 
the holder thereof shall be entitled to such repayment or remission of excise 
duty as he would have been entitled to had the license been permanently 
discontinued, and at the expiration of the period during which the disability 
continues the license, if a justices’ license, shall revive and have effect as if 
it had been granted for the then current licensing year, and a person who 
was the holder of an excise license which has been suspended shall be entitled 
to take out an excise license on payment of such an amount in respect of 
excise duty as would have been payable by him had he commenced to carry 
on business at the expiration of that period. 

Provided that if during the period for which any license is so suspended 
a contingency occurs upon which a transfer of the license might have been 
granted but for the suspension, a transfer may be granted either— 


(a) at the time at which, and to a person to whom, a transfer might 
have been granted had the license not been suspended; or 

(b) after the expiration of the period to any person to whom a 
transfer might have been granted had the contingency occurred imme- 
diately after the expiration of the period. 


_ Where a license for the sale of intoxicating liquor is so suspended, the 
holder of the license may, during the period of suspension, without further 
license continue to carry on in the premises in respect of which the suspended 
license was granted any business, other than the sale of intoxicating liquor, 
which had the suspended license not been suspended he would have been 
entitled to carry on by virtue of that license, but the premises shall be 
deemed to be duly licensed for the carrying on of such other business. 

15. An excise license may, notwithstanding anything in the law relating 
to licensing, be granted as respects any premises in the area on the authority 
of a certificate from the Board, and any excise license so granted shall be 
valid in all respects, and, subject to the provisions of these regulations, the 
law relating to the holders of justices’ licenses shall apply to the holders 
of such certificates as if such a certificate was a justices’ license. 

No such conditions need be attached to the grant of any such certificate 
as must be attached to the grant of a new justices’ on-license. 

16. Any powers conferred on the Board by these regulations may, if the 
Board by resolution so determine, be exercised on behalf of the Board by 
any persons whom the Board may appoint for the purpose. 

17. In addition to the powers expressly conferred on them by these 
regulations, the Board shall have such supplemental and incidental powers 


74 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


as may be necessary for carrying into effect the purposes of these regulations. 

18. Any inspector or other person authorized by the Board shall have 
power to enter, if need be by force, and inspect any licensed premises within 
the area, and any club or other premises within the area where he has reason 
to believe that intoxicating liquor is sold by retail or supplied, to demand 
the production of and to inspect and take copies of or extracts from any 
books or documents relating to the business carried on therein, and to take 
samples of any intoxicating liquor found therein. 

19. If any person obstructs or impedes any inspector or other person 
acting under the instructions or authority of the Board, or refuses to answer 
any question reasonably put to him by any such inspector or person, or 
makes or causes to be made any false statement to any such inspector or 
person, or refuses to produce any document in his possession which he is 
Tequired by any such inspector or person to produce, he shall be guilty of a 
summary offense against the Defense of the Realm (Consolidation) Regula- 
tions, 1914. 

20. If any person attempts to contravene, or induces or attempts to induce 
any other person to contravene, any provision of these regulations or any 
order made thereunder, or any conditions or restrictions imposed by the 
Board, he shall be guilty of a summary offense against the Defense of the 
Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914. 

21. A person guilty of a summary offense against the Defense of the 
Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914, is liable to be sentenced to im- 
prisonment with or without hard labor for a term not exceeding six months 
or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment 
and fine, and if the court so orders, to forfeit the goods in respect of which 
the offense is committed. 

22. No person shall be liable to any penalty under the law relating to 
licensing or the sale of intoxicating liquor in respect of any action taken 
by him if such action is taken in pursuance of any order made or instructions 
given by the Board. 

23. The Board before acquiring any licensed-premises or club or an in- 
terest therein, or taking possession of any licensed premises or club, shall 
give notice of their intention to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, 
and where the Board carry on or appoint or authorize any person to carry 
on any business involving the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor they shall 
furnish to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise particulars as to the 
nature of the business to be carried on by him, and as to any person so ap- 
pointed or authorized, and any other particulars required by the Commis- 
sioners. 

24. It shall be the duty of the police to enforce these Regulations, and 
any orders of the Board made thereunder. 

25. These regulations shall apply to Scotland subject to the following 
modifications : 

References to real or personal property shall be construed as refer- 
ences to heritable and movable property respectively ; “intoxicating liquor” 
shall mean “excisable liquor”; “fee simple in possession” shall mean 


GREAT BRITAIN 75 


“estate of the proprietor or lessor”; “mortgage” shall meam “heritable 
security”; and a reference to a justices’ license shall be construed as a 
reference to a certificate as defined im Part VII of the Licensing (Scot- 
land) Act, 1903. 

In amy case where under these regulations the Board acquire or de- 
termine to acquire compulsorily any premises or amy imterest thereim, a 
person transacting on the faith of amy register of sasimes with the 
proprietor or lessor of such premises or with any other persom whose title 
is recorded in such register shall (notwithstanding anythmg im these 
regulations contained) not be affected by amy notice served by the Board 
or any vesting following thereom unless a certified copy of such notice 
has been recorded im the register of inhibitions prior to the completion 
of such transaction. 

For the purpose of enabling the trustees for the Board to complete 
a title if thought fit to amy heritable property or estate compulsorily ac- 
quired by the Board and vested im the trustees by virtme of these regu- 
lations, by expeding a notarial imstrument or otherwise, these regu- 
lations shall be deemed to be and (without prejudice to any other method 
of completion of title) may be used as a general disposition or assigna- 
tion of such property or estate im favor of the trustees. 


26. In the application of these regulations to Ireland, the expression 
“excise license” includes any license for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted 
by an officer of excise, and the expression “justices” license” imcludes any 
certificate of a recorder, justice, or justices required for the gramt of an 
excise license. 


27. For the purposes of these regulations— 
The expression “sale by retail” means sale other than sale to trader 
for the purposes of his trade. 
The expression “supply” in relation to mtoxicating liquor means sup- 
ply otherwise than by way of sale. 
The expression “licemsed premises” includes any premises or place 
where the sale of mtoxicating liquor is carried om under a license. 


28. The regulations may be cited as the Defense of the Realm (Liquor 
Control) Regulations, 1915. 
Aumeric FitzRoy. 


The first report of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traf- 
fic), hereafter called the Board, was issued October 12, 1915. 
Since it had only been created by an Order in Council of the 
10th of June, this report could only be fragmentary and its con- 
clusions tentative. In fact, the full personnel of the Board was 
not published in this report. It was to consist of a chairman and 
such persons as the Minister of Munitions might from time to 


76 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


time appoint. Lord D’Abernon was chairman and Mr. J. C. G, 
Sykes was Secretary, The second report, dated May 1, 1916, 
gives the full personnel at that date: 


CONSTITUTION OF BOARD 


Lord D’Abernon, K. C. M. G., Chairman 

Major the Hon. Waldorf Astor, M. P. 

Mr. W. Waters Butler (appointed January, 1916) 
Rev. Henry Carter (appointed January, 1916) 
Mr. Neville Chamberlain (resigned February, 1916) 
Mr. E. Richard Cross 

Colonel John M. Denny 

Mr. John Hodge, M. P. 

Sir William H. Lever, Bart. 

Sir George Newman, M. D. 

Mr. John Pedder, C. B. 

Mak URRY Scott, (ea sile 

Mr. Philip Snowden, M. P. 

Mr. W. Towle 

Mrs) J. \CavGe Sykes (©. BS Secretary 


ASSESSORS TO THE BOARD 


For England and Wales—Mr. E. C. Sanders, Clerk to the 
Liverpool Justices. 

For Scotland—Sir Thomas Munro, Clerk to the lanee 
County Council. 

The legislative steps toward an effective control of the liquor 
trade in war time may be summarized as follows: 

1. An Order in Council of August 12, 1914, authorizing the 
competent naval or military authority to close premises licensed 
for the sale of liquor in the neighborhood of any defended 
harbor. 

2. The Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 
August 31, 1914, authorizing the licensing justices to suspend 
any license when they deemed it necessary for the maintenance 
of order. 


GREAT BRITAIN 77 


3. The act of Parliament known as the extension of the De- 
fense of the Realm Consolidation Act, dated May 19, 1915, 
empowered the Cabinet by Order in Council to take such meas- 
ures as seemed wise. 

4. An Order in Council, dated June 10, 1915, created the Cen- 
tral Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to exercise control in such 
areas as it should select. 

5. The regulations issued from time to time by this Board 
were the effective means of control. From this time on, the 
matter was virtually in the hands of the Board, though it always 
acted under the authority of the Council, and in some cases 
merely made recommendations to the Council, which then issued 
an Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations. 

By July 6, 1915, the Board had satisfied itself that action was 
called for in ten areas in England and Wales. On that date an 
Order in Council was issued defining these areas and bringing 
them under the regulations of the Board. These regulations 
are known as “Liquor Control Regulations.” Two Scotch areas 
were added on July 28, a third on September 14 and the London 
area on September 24. The following is a list of the areas named 
in the first report of the Board as having been placed under its 
regulations: 


Commencement 

Area Date of Order of Order 
Mela ar, UES eRe te ee eRe 15th July 26th July 
IGMIELATHALOIN. & erates, 5.5% Seren oad a hone lS 8 220d = 2d August 
BagrOw-In-FUINeSS 22.2.0. 6 ceca eked -e 724 Ran Nae 2d cs 
BeErordePNStRIEe 22) <i. ae aoe ee Ss es 26th) 05 6th + 
ormeeast  COASh) 2424s oc cis se awn oso nicle.s 30th =“ 10th 2 
Bristol and Avonmouth ............... 30th) , 6 10th s 
Liverpool and Mersey District......... Sth August 16th ¢ 
Newport 
TCT) FE riot ee irs Ae eee 7th . 18th = 
Barry 
Scotland, West Central ........... bare REE, s 23d - 
Sentiand yhast, Central . <2. apie e se ace 12th o 23d - 
Scotland.) Norther, 2.22.43). accceciecccb vol 17th September 27th September 
LONG OUMENS BRR Sep ORS en ERE aro alae 1st October 11th October 


It must be remembered that the Board was expected to use 
large discretionary powers. In the first place, it was to regulate 


1 See First Report of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), London, . 
_ October 12, 1915. 


78 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR “BUSINESS 


®  & Shaded parts are the scheduled areas 
@ 2 (June, 1916),In these areas the Central 
Control Board’s restrictions include: 
1. Reduction in hours of sale 
2. Prohibition of “treating” 
3. No credit sales 
4. No ‘long pull” 
5. Dilution of spirits permitted 
6. Abolition of the bona fide traveller 


7. No canvassing from door to door 
for liquor orders 


a) 
NSS perdeen 


“Neweastle 
NN 


Cd 


From the “* Pioneer’? Toronto, Canada. 


GREAT BRITAIN 79 


the liquor trade only in such areas as seemed to need control for 
the reasons specified in the act of Parliament authorizing con- 
trol. In the second place, it was to apply only such regulations 
in each area as the local conditions seemed to require. A differ- 
ent set of regulations could, if thought desirable, be applied to 
each area. 

The orders issued were, however, with the exception of that 
for London, all framed on the same general plan, though not 
in all respects identical. The main provisions were the restric- 
tion of the hours of sale and the elimination of treating. It was 
thought that drunkenness resulted largely from the cumulative 
effects of drinking when continued over long hours. When men 
began drinking early in the day and continued occasionally until 
late at night the physiological and moral effects were likely to 
become intensified beyond reasonable limits. Accordingly the 
places of sale were to be closed except for short periods in the 
middle of the day and in the early evening. Treating, especially 
the treating of soldiers and sailors, though indulged in from the 
very best of motives, was likely to result in excessive drinking. 
When a large number of patriotic citizens desired to show their 
good will by treating a soldier, it was hard for him to avoid 
showing his appreciation by accepting their hospitality. But the 
good will of those who did the treating, and the politeness of the 
soldier could not prevent the physiological effects of alcohol from 
showing themselves. 

The following is a part of the text of the order: 


(1) The sale or supply of intoxicating liquor, whether for consumption 
on or off the premises, is ordinarily restricted to two and a half hours in 
the middle of the day, and to three (or, in some cases, two) hours in the 
evening, the sale of alcohol thus being prohibited before 12 noon and through- 
out the afternoon between 2:30 and 6 or 6:30 P.M. 

(2) In addition, the sale or supply of spirits for consumption is prohib- 
ited in the evenings and on Saturdays. 

(3) “Treating” and credit sales are, subject to certain minor exceptions, 
absolutely prohibited. 

(4) Clubs, as well as licensed premises, are made subject to the restrictions. 

(5) Licensed premises are permitted to open for the purpose of the 
supply of nonalcoholic drink and of solid refreshment at an early hour in 


80 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


the morning, so as to meet the interests of men proceeding to their work, 
and they are allowed to remain open for this purpose in the hours during 
which they are prohibited by the Board’s order from selling intoxicating 
liquor. 

(6) Permission is given to dilute spirits to 35 degrees under proof only, 
as allowed by the general law. 

In the case of London, the Board, on the urgent represenfations of the 
military authorities, have issued an order prohibiting “treating” and permit- 
ting the dilution of spirits to 45 degrees under proof in the case of gin and 
to 35 degrees under proof in the case of other spirits. The question of the 
restriction of hours, and other matters usually dealt with by the Board’s 
orders, are being carefully considered with a view to the special requirements 
of London. : 


In the second report of the Board a more detailed order, 
dated February 17, 1916, is published. 


Hours purinc Wuicu INnTox1caTING Liguor May BE Soxp 2 


A. For Consumption ON the Premises 


2. (1) The hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold or sup- 
plied in any licensed premises or club for consumption on the premises 
shall be restricted and be as follows: 


On Weekdays: 
The hours between 12 noon and 2:30 p.m., and between 6 P.M. and 
9 P.M. 
On Sundays: 
The hours between 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., and between 6 p.m. and 
9 P.M. 


Except between the aforesaid hours no person shall— 

(a) Either by himself or by any servant or agent sell or supply to 
any person in any licensed premises or club any intoxicating liquor to be 
consumed on the premises; or 

(b) Consume in any such premises or club any intoxicating liquor; or 

(c) Permit any person to consume in any such premises or club any 
intoxicating liquor. 


B. For Consumption OFF the Premises 


(2) The hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied 
in any licensed premises or club for consumption off the premises shall 


1 From the First Report of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), 
London. October 12, 1915. Pages 4 and 5. 

2 Second Report of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), appointed 
under the Defense of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915; Ist May, 
1916, pages 10 et seq. 


GREAT BRITAIN 81 


(subject to the additional restrictions as regards spirits) be restricted and be 
as follows: 


On Weekdays: 


The hours between 12 noon and 2:30 p.m., and between 6 p.m. and 
8 P.M. 


‘On Sundays: 


The hours between 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., and between 6 p.m. and 
8 P.M. 


Except between the aforesaid hours no person shall— 


(a) Either by himself or by any servant or agent sell or supply to 
any person in any licensed premises or club for consumption off the 
premises or (except as hereinafter expressly provided) dispatch there- 
from any intoxicating liquor; or 

(b) Take from any such premises or club any intoxicating liquor; or 

(c) Permit any person to take from any such premises or club any 
intoxicating liquor. : 


ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AS TO SPIRITS 


3. In addition to the above general restrictions as to hours during which 
intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied, the sale and supply of spirits in 
licensed premises and clubs shall be subject to the following special restric- 
tions, that is to say: 


(a) No orders for spirits to be consumed off the premises shall be ° 
given by or accepted from any person actually present in any licensed 
premises or club except on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, 
and Fridays, and during the hours between 12 noon and 2:30 p.m. 

(b) Spirits to be consumed off the premises must not (except as 
hereinafter expressly provided) be dispatched from any licensed prem- 
ises or club, nor must they be taken therefrom by the person to whom’ 
they are sold or supplied or by any perscu acting on his behalf, except 
on the days and during the hours aforesaid. 

(c) Spirits to be consumed off the premises shall not be sold or sup- 
plied in or taken from any licensed premises or club in any bottle or 
other vessel not bearing a label showing the name and situation of the 
premises or club, or in any vessel of a capacity less than one reputed 
quart, or in any less quantity than one reputed quart, or in any open 
vessel. 

(d) No spirits to be consumed off the premises shall be sold or sup- 
plied in or taken from any refreshment room in any railway station. 


ConDITIONS AS TO DISTRIBUTION 


4. No person shall either by himself or any servant or agent— 


(a) Sell, supply, distribute or deliver any intoxicating liquor from any 
van, barrow, basket or other vehicle or receptacle unless before the 


82 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


liquor is dispatched it has been ordered and the quantity, description and 
price thereof together with the name and address of the person to whom 
it is to be supplied has been entered in a delivery book or invoice, which 
shall be carried by the person delivering the liquor, and in a day book 
which shall be kept on the premises from which the liquor is dispatched. 

(b) Carry or convey in any van, barrow, basket or other vehicle or’ 
receptacle while in use for the distribution or delivery of intoxicating 
liquor, any such liquor not entered in such delivery book or invoice and 
day book. 

(c) Distribute or deliver any intoxicating liquor at any address not 
specified in such delivery book or invoice and day book. 

(d) Refuse to allow any constable to examine such van, barrow, 
basket or other vehicle or receptacle or such delivery book or invoice. 

(e) Authorize or permit any person employed to deliver, distribute 
or take or solicit orders for intoxicating liquor to receive or make any 
payment in respect of intoxicating liquor, or, being a person so em- 
ployed, receive or make any such payment on behalf of any other person, 
or, being so engaged on his own behalf, receive any such payment. 
Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall affect the receipt of money 
paid at the licensed premises. 


Hours oF OPENING FOR THE SUPPLY OF Foop aNnD NoNINTOXICANTS 


5. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Order or of the Law relating 
to licensing or the sale of intoxicating liquor: 


(a) Licensed premises may be opened for the supply of food and 
nonintoxicating liquor at the hour of 5:30 in the morning on all days, 
and be kept open for this purpose from that hour until the evening 
closing hour prescribed by the general provisions of the Licensing Acts; 
and 

(b) Refreshment houses may be kept open for this purpose at any 
time during which they may be kept open under the general provisions 
of the said acts. 

SAvING PRovISIONS 


6. Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this order shall be deemed to 
prohibit in cases where the same is otherwise lawful: 

(a) The consumption of intoxicating liquor by any person in any 
licensed premises or club where he is residing; or 

(b) The consumption of intoxicating liquor at a meal by any person 
in any licensed premises or club at any time within half an hour after 
the conclusion of the afternoon and evening hours during which the 
sale or supply of intoxicating liquor is permitted by this order; Provided 
that the liquor was sold or supplied and served during such hours at the 
same time as the meal and for consumption at the meal; or 

(c) The sale or supply of spirits to any person producing a certifi- 
cate in writing dated and signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner 


GREAT BRITAIN 83 


that the spirits are immediately required for medicinal purposes and 
specifying the quantity of spirits required. Provided that the quantity 
sold or supplied shall not exceed the quantity specified in such certifi- 
cate; or 

(d) The dispatch from licensed premises for delivery at a place more 
than five miles distant of any spirits or other intoxicating liquor in the 
forenoon of any day on which the sale of the same for consumption off 
the premises is permitted by Article 2 (2) and Article 3 of this order, 
as the case may be. 

TREATING PROHIBITED 


7. No person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell or 
supply any intoxicating liquor to any person in any licensed premises or in 
any club for consumption on the premises unless the same is ordered and 
paid for by the person so supplied; nor shall any person order or pay for 
or lend or advance money to pay for any intoxicating liquor wherewith any 
other person has been or is to be supplied for consumption on the premises; 
nor shall any person consume in any licensed premises or club any intoxicating 
liquor which any other person has ordered or paid for or agreed to pay for 
or lent or advanced money to pay for. 

Provided always that if such intoxicating liquor is supplied or served 
for consumption at a meal supplied at the same time and is consumed at 
such meal the provisions of this regulation shall not be deemed to be con- 
travened if the person who pays for such meal also pays for such intoxicating 
liquor. 

For the purposes of this regulation consumption on the premises includes 
consumption of intoxicating liquor in or on any highway, open ground or 
railway station adjoining or near to the licensed premises or club in which 
the liquor was sold or supplied; and any person consuming intoxicating 
liquor in or on any such highway, open ground or railway station shall be 
deemed to consume the liquor in such licensed premises or club as the case 
may be. 

CrepitT PROHIBITED 

8. No person shall— 

(1) (a) Either by himself or by any servant or agent sell or supply 
in any licensed premises or club or dispatch therefrom any intoxicating 
liquor to be consumed either on or off the premises; or 

(b) Consume any intoxicating liquor in or take it from such premises 
or club; unless it is paid for before or at the time when it is supplied 
or dispatched or taken away. 


Provided always that if the liquor is sold for consumption at a meal 
supplied at the same time and is consumed at such meal, this provision shall 
not be deemed to be contravened if the price of the liquor is paid together 
with the price of such meal and before the person partaking thereof quits 
the premises. 

(2) Introduce or cause to be introduced into the area any intoxicating 
liquor unless it is paid for before it is so introduced. 


84 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


9. No person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent in any 
licensed premises or club sell or supply to any person as the measure of 
intoxicating liquor for which he asks an amount exceeding that measure. 


DiILuTION oF SPIRITS 


10. The sale of whisky, brandy and rum reduced to a number of degrees 
under proof which falls between 25 and 50, and of gin reduced to a number 
of degrees under proof which falls between 35 and 50, is hereby permitted, 
and accordingly, in determining whether an offense has been committed un- 
der the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts by selling to the prejudice of the 
purchaser whisky, brandy, rum or gin not adulterated otherwise than by 
the admixture of water it shall be a good defense to prove that such admix- 
ture has not reduced the spirit more than 50 degrees under proof. 


ExpLANATORY Provisions 
11. 

(a) Nothing in this order authorizes any licensed premises to be kept 
open for the sale of intoxicating liquor except during the hours per- 
mitted under the general provisions of the Licensing Acts. Kr 

(b) The prohibition under this order of the sale, supply and con- 
sumption of intoxicating liquor except during certain hours is not sub- 
ject to the exceptions provided for in the Licensing Acts with respect 
to bona fide travelers and the supply of intoxicating liquor at railway 
stations or any other provisions in those acts enabling intoxicating 
liquor to be supplied during closing hours in special cases. 

(c) The expression “licensed premises” includes any premises or 
place where the sale of intoxicating liquor is carried on under a license. 

(d) This order does not affect the sale or dispatch of intoxicating 
liquor to a trader for the purposes of his trade or to a registered club 
for the purposes of the club. 

(e) This order does not affect the sale or supply of intoxicating 
liquor to or in any canteen where the sale of intoxicating liquor is car- 
ried on under the authority of a Secretary of State or of the Admiralty. 


REVOCATION OF PREVIOUS ORDERS FOR THE SOUTHAMPTON AND THE 
PorTsMoUTH AREAS 


12. This order shall be substituted for the orders of the Central Control 
Board (Liquor Traffic) made respectively on the 22nd day of July, 1915, and 
the 11th day of November, 1915, for the Southampton and the Portsmouth 
Areas, which said orders are hereby revoked. 


EXHIBITION OF THE ORDER 


13. The secretary of every club to which this order applies and every 
holder of a license for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall keep permanently 
affixed in some conspicuous place in the club or in each public room in the 
licensed premises a copy of this order and any notice required by the Board 
to be. affixed. 


GREAT BRITAIN 85 


CoMMENCEMENT OF ORDER 


14. This order shall come into force on the twenty-eighth day of Febru- 
ary, 1916. 


The restriction of the hours of sale and the elimination of 
treating were followed later by the establishment of canteens 
and also by direct control of drinking places. Sections 5, 6 and 
7 of the Order in Council creating the Board (see pages 68 to 
76 of this monograph) specifically gave the Board power to 
maintain refreshment rooms and places for the sale of both 
food and liquor, and to acquire the necessary property for the 
carrying on of this business, even, if necessary, to the exclusion 
of all other persons. 

The need for proper places where workers “might obtain 
thoroughly good and cheap hot and cold dinners and other 
properly prepared refreshments at moderate prices” soon thrust 
itself upon the attention of the Board. This need was caused, 
in part, by the great concentration of workers in certain areas, 
where accommodations had not previously been provided. Other 
agencies, however, had been at work supplying the need. First, 
there was the canteen established by the employer himself, sec- 
ondly, private agencies or philanthropic societies were active. 
But the Board itself had, at the time of the publication of its 
second report (May 1, 1916) provided two canteens in places 
where the circumstances were said to be somewhat exceptional. 
In addition it had exercised supervision over those established 
by other agencies and in many cases it has rendered financial 
assistance. 

In the third report of the Board (published April 30, 1917) 
announcement was made of a progressive development of policy 
in several particulars. The progressive dilution of spirits was 
carried much further than had been allowed by prewar legisla- 
tion. The Sale of Food and Drugs Acts of 1875 and 1879, 
which are analogous to the Pure Food Laws of the United 
States, provided that spirits other than gin should not be sold 
at a lower strength than 25 degrees under proof without notice 


86 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


to the purchaser, and, in the case of gin, not lower than 35 de- 
grees under proof.* 

In the orders issued February 17, 1916 (see above) permis- 
sion was given to dilute to 50 per cent under proof. By an 
order issued June 6, 1916, it was provided that spirits should 
not be sold having a maximum strength of more than 25 per 
cent under proof and on February 1, 1917, the maximum was 
further reduced to 30 per cent under proof. Thus, instead of 
exercising its authority to prevent dilution below a certain mini- 
mum, the Board was beginning to compel dilution. 

The same change of policy took place with respect to beer. 
By an order which came into force on the 10th of July, 1916, 
permission was given to sell beer containing not more than 2 
per cent of proof spirit during all hours of the day from 9 a.m. 
until the evening closing hour, and not simply during the hours 
within which stronger liquors were permitted to be sold. 

The Board’s policy with respect to industrial canteens has 
constantly developed during the war. It is impossible to say to 
what extent the reasons back of this policy are sound or based 
on accurate, scientific evidence. The Board states: “It is a 
matter of common knowledge and experience that the absence 
of proper facilities for obtaining wholesome and _ sufficient 
nourishment frequently leads directly or indirectly to drinking 
habits with all their resultant evils.” If there is anything which 
a scientific student must learn to distrust, it is the so-called com- 
mon knowledge and experience. It is usually a euphemism for 
a statement “I prefer to assume that thus and so is true.”” There 
is probably as much scientific evidence for the opinion that too 
much good food leads to drinking as for the opinion that inade- 
quate food leads to drinking, which is the same as saying that 
there is no reliable evidence in favor of either proposition. 

Aside from its bearing on the drink question, there is no 


1 Proof spirit is composed of 49.28 per cent alcohol and 50.72 per cent 
water (by weight). Spirit 25 degrees under proof contains 75 per cent 
proof spirit or 35.91 per cent pure alcohol. Spirit 35 degrees under proof 
contains 31.85 per cent pure alcohol. Spirit 50 degrees under proof contains 
23.49 per cent pure alcohol. See Second Report of the Central Control 
Board (Liquor Traffic), page ,14. 


GREAT BRITAIN 87 


doubt that the human body must be properly nourished and that 
its health and working capacity depends somewhat on the ques- 
tion of nourishment. This in itself would furnish a sufficient 
reason for the efforts of the Board to improve the facilities for 
feeding the working population, and its bearing on the drink 
question might very properly serve as a legal excuse. 

Even though the provisions made by the Board for feeding 
the factory workers were not physiologically superior to those 
which were otherwise provided, the psychology of the situation 
is a thing which would have to be considered. If it is the general 
opinion that existing provisions are inadequate and the Board 
could provide conditions which met with general approval, the 
psychological situation would be undoubtedly improved and 
this would doubtless have some effect on physiology. The Board 
states, Third Report, page 10, 


It must be admitted that the circumstances and conditions of his life, 
both at home and in the factory, have not infrequently combined to prevent 
him from obtaining such a food supply. He has had to depend upon food 
brought with him from home—in some cases to be warmed up at the factory, 
and in other cases to be consumed cold—or upon food, unsuited to his 
needs, obtained near his place of work. ‘Both these methods are unsatis- 


factory. 


Doubtless the Board had some specific evidence to show that 
food brought from home and warmed up in the factory or in 
other cases consumed cold was unsatisfactory. There is noth- 
ing, however, in the mere statement of the case that sounds 
convincing. In general, there is just as much evidence to show 
that food consumed when sitting at a table is improper and 
unsatisfactory as there is to show that food carried in a tin 
pail and consumed cold is unsuitable and unsatisfactory. These 
questions are raised at this point not for the purpose of clearing 
up any technical problems in dietetics, but to show how large 
a part opinion, psychology, or even demagogy must play in the 
speeding up of industry and in getting work done in war time. 

Again, the Board found that neither the public house nor 
the ordinary restaurant could fully meet the demands of indus- 


88 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


trial life under war conditions. One can not help being suspi- 
cious that this finding was not based so much on technical 
dietetics as on the general feeling of the people that if the 
government was doing something for them in the way of pro- 
viding eating places, it was more deserving of their enthusiastic 
support in industry than it would otherwise be. 

Two other agencies, however, as stated above, were already 
at work and providing for this need, but the enthusiasm of 
the employer as well as of the philanthropic agencies needed to 
be encouraged. The philanthropic agencies sometimes had 
difficulty in raising the necessary funds by voluntary, subscrip- 
tion. The Board found it advisable to help in the financing of 
these agencies. It therefore obtained authority from the Treas- 
ury to pay grants in aid to approved voluntary societies up to 
one-half of their capital expenditure on canteens for munition 
and transport workers. 

Even this method, however, proved inadequate. Public sub- 
scriptions fell off, partly, it is to be presumed, because of the 
heavy taxation and the large number of calls upon people for 
philanthropic contributions. There was also the feeling that 
the munition manufacturer, to whose advantage it was to have 
work speeded up and carried on effectively, should finance the 
canteens. At any rate, the voluntary system proved inadequate, 
and yet it seemed desirable to keep alive these philanthropic 
enterprises. The Board reached the conclusion that these volun- 
tary societies could best be utilized by employing them to manage 
canteens, erected and equipped by employers. 

The next question was to induce employers to undergo the 
necessary cost. Under the Munitions of War Act, practically 
all manufacturers of munitions in the wide meaning of that 
term in modern warfare, were to receive only their standard 
prewar profits plus one-fifth, all excess profits above this to 
be paid into the national Treasury. With profits so rigidly 
limited, the employers would naturally be somewhat reluctant 
to undertake the additional expense of providing canteens. A 
way out of the difficulty was found by allowing employers to 


GREAT BRITAIN 89 


charge the cost of the canteen to the running expenses of the 
establishment. Since this reduced by an equal sum the amount 
of excess profits which they would have to pay into the Treas- 
ury, it virtually meant the public financing of the canteens. The 
Board has developed an expert staff of inspectors and advisers 
to cooperate with employers and philanthropic agencies in the 
maintenance of these canteens. At the time of the publication 
of the third report, it had under its supervision 570 canteens 
in establishments employing a total of 800,000 workers. Most 
of these canteens were what are known as “temperance” or 
“dry” canteens, in which no intoxicants are supplied. In a few 
cases, however, the Board have made special orders providing 
that no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied except beer, and 
limiting the amount to be supplied to each person to one pint 
to be consumed with a meal. Certain canteens have also been 
licensed for the sale of beer containing less than two per cent, 
proof spirit. The Board enumerates the following exceptional 
conditions as justifying the experiment of industrial canteens: 

(a) The concentration of munition work in well defined areas resulting 
in congestion of population and imposing upon the workers the necessity of 
traveling long distances to their work; 

(b) the establishment of large and important factories in isolated places; 

(c) the employment of women; 

(d) the employment of men and women at night. [Third Report, page 
12] ; 

The establishment of canteens had very little to do with 
drink control except indirectly. In so far as the belief was 
justified that proper food, served under proper condition, would 
reduce the demand for drink, the establishment of canteens 
might be called a temperance measure. At most, however, this 
could have little influence on the sale of drink in the regular 
public houses. The Board, therefore, found it necessary in cer- 
tain areas to assume direct control of the regular selling agencies. 
At the time of the Board’s second report, it had already estab- 
lished direct control in the area surrounding the Gretna National 
Explosives Factory. But it was found that large numbers of 
the men employed in this factory were housed in the city of 


90 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Carlisle, and even those not housed there were in the habit of 
resorting to that city on holidays. This created a situation 
which seemed to require action on the part of the Board. Such 
a vast increase in the adult male population, most of which was 
made up of highly paid workmen receiving unusual wages, 
naturally had the effect of increasing drunkenness. The Board 
states that the average convictions per week in the autumn of 
1915 was five, but that they had risen to an average of 42 per 
week in June, 1916. It was of little use apparently to exercise 
strict control over liquor selling in the Gretna area so long as 
these conditions existed in the city of Carlisle. 

Somewhat drastic action was decided upon. The Board pur- 
chased the whole undertakings of the Carlisle breweries, and 
gradually acquired the licensed premises for the sale of drink, 
119 of which were in the city of Carlisle and 82 in the surround- 
ing districts. Thus the Board itself has definitely gone into the 
liquor business, not only selling, but manufacturing. Having 
complete control of the business, however, it is able to eliminate 
some of the worst features and to take measures for the reduc- 
tion of excessive drinking. There is no advertising, no selling 
of spirits for consumption on the premises to persons under the _ 
age of 18, and beer is sold to such persons only if taken with 
a meal. Steps were also taken to discourage the practice of 
drinking beer and spirits mixed. The number of houses in which 
spirits were sold for consumption off the premises were reduced 
from over 100 to 17. Naturally a good many readjustments 
had to be made and a very effective system of supervision had 
to be organized. The sale of spirits has been prohibited and a 
number of drinking places have been closed. 


CHAPTER IV 


What Was Done by the Government—The Conservation 
of Food Materials 


The first stages in the government control of the liquor trade 
were all connected with the problem of drunkenness or of in- 
efficiency and loss of time due to drink. During the first two 
years of the war this was the only phase of the question which 
the government had thought it necessary to consider. There 
had, it is true, been some public discussion of the question of 
the waste of food materials in the manufacture of alcoholic 
drinks, but the food shortage had not become sufficiently acute 
to force this question upon the attention of Parliament or the 
Council. By the end of the second year, however, this question 
could no longer be ignored. Liquor control legislation therefore 
entered upon a new phase. From this time forward the ques- 
tions of drunkenness and inefficiency were less prominent, both 
in popular discussion and in government action, than the ques- 
tion of food conservation. The German U-boats had made a 
sufficient impression on the shipping, and the danger of a genuine 
food shortage through the cutting off of imports was great 
enough to compel attention. The waste of food materials in the 
manufacture of potable alcohol was so great and so apparent 
that no amount of sophistry and claptrap could divert the public 
mind from its serious consideration. 

In addition to the obvious necessity of conserving food, the 
English people had to consider the state of mind in Canada and 
the United States where prohibition sentiment is much stronger 
than in England. Since England had to depend largely upon 
North America for her supplies of grain, she could not con- 
sistently ask the American people for large quantities to be used 
for purposes which they did not approve. The disloyal and pro- 

91 


92 ‘GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


German elements in our population were not slow to take advan- 
tage of this situation in order to create sentiment either hostile 
to or indifferent toward food conservation. To be sure, the 
brewing interests were largely in the hands of Germans. Most 
of these, however, were loyal to the United States and had no 
unpatriotic motive for opposing shipments of grain to our allies. 
Even those Germans who were disloyal could not accomplish 
much by openly opposing the saving of food, because their 
motives would have been suspected. But the same thing could 
be accomplished in different ways. Even reasonably loyal people 
whose interest in prohibition was stronger than their interest in 
the successful issue of the war, kept asking why we should 
' deprive ourselves of the food we liked in order to send it abroad 
to be made into intoxicating liquor. Even though they forgot 
that we as a country were not yet out of our glass house and 
were therefore not in a position to throw stones, and even though 
they forgot that wheat which we were being asked to send to 
the Allies was not used in the manufacturing of liquor, still, 
this kind of questioning had its influence on public opinion and 
hindered the work of our Food Administration. 

On August 3, 1916, almost exactly two years after war was 
declared, Parliament passed the first of a series of acts restrict- 
ing the production of alcoholic liquor in the United Kingdom. 
It reduced the annual output of the breweries to 26,000,000 
barrels. The annual production before this had been approxi- 
mately 36,000,000 barrels. 

The following is the text of the act: 


Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in 
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as 
follows: 

1. (1) A brewer shall not brew at his brewery or breweries during the 
first three-quarters to which this act applies more than the aggregate maxi- 
mum barrelages for those quarters as determined for the purposes of this 
act, and shall not brew at his brewery or breweries in any subsequent 
quarter to which this act applies more than his maximum barrelage for the 
quarter as determined for the purposes of this act. 

(2) If a brewer acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable 


GREAT BRITAIN 3 93 


in respect of each offense to an excise penalty of one hundred pounds, and, 
in addition, to an excise penalty of two pounds for every barrel of beer 
brewed by him exceeding the maximunt barrelage. 

(3) This section shall not apply to brewers other than brewers for sale. 

2. (1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners 
in the case of each brewery, and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard 
barrelage as defined in this section with the addition as respects any quarter 
after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined. 

(2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this section shall be— 


(a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corre- 
sponding quarter in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nine- 
teen hundred and sixteen, the number of barrels which appear to the 
Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and 

(b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corre- 
sponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to 
the Commissioners to be reasonable having regard to the average num- 
ber of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has 
been working; and 

(c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are 
satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other 
change in the circumstances of the brewery taking place after the thirty- 
first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, the standard barrelage 
as ascertained under the foregoing provisions does not afford a proper 
standard of comparison or affords no standard of comparison, such 
number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to 
the special circumstances of the case, reduced in each case by 15 per cent. 

Provided, that if a brewer gives notice to the Commissioners before 
the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, that he desires 
that the foregoing provisions of this section should be applied to his 
brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of 
September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, for the year ending the thirty- 
first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and of 30 per cent . 
for 15 per cent, those provisions shall be applied to his brewery with 
those substitutions, subject to the power of his Majesty by Order 
in Council to withdraw this privilege as from a subsequent date to be 
fixed by the Order in Council or to substitute any higher percentages 
pro rata if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the 
first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate 
of the total output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to 
below a rate of 26,000,000 barrels a year. 


(3) If any licensed premises shall, after the thirty-first day of March, 
nineteen hundred and fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, 
or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply 
to the licensed premises the same quantity (less 15 per cent) of beer as has 
previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that 
other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maxi- 


94 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


mum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, trans- 
ferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a 
mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of 
licensed premises within this section. 

(4) For the purposes of this section the surplus barrelage shall be, as 
respects any quarter, the number Gi any) of barrels by which the aggregate 
number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the act 
applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters. 

3. A manufacturer’s license for a brewer for sale shall not after the date 
of the passing of this act be granted while this act is in operation except 
to a person holding such a license and for the same premises as those in 
respect of which the license is held or for premises substituted for those 
premises. ; 

4. Where the provisions of this act interfere with any contract made by 
a brewer before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, to sell 
or supply beer or in connection with the delivery of beer, that contract shall 
be modified so as to conform with the provisions of this act in such manner 
as may be agreed upon between the parties to the contract, or, in default 
of agreement, determined in England by arbitration, in accordance with the 
Arbitration Act, 1889, in Scotland by a single arbiter to be appointed by the 
sheriff, and in Ireland in accordance with the Common Law Procedure 
Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, and for the purposes of that act, but 
subject to any agreement of the parties to the contrary, this provision shall 
have effect in like manner as a submission to arbitration by consent author- 
izing a reference to a single arbitrator and incorporating paragraph (i) of the 
schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1889. 

5. (1) Any license holder, in so far as he is not bound by any covenant, 
agreement, or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular 
brewer, and who has, at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day 
of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any 
brewer or brewers, shall be entitled, on giving not less than fourteen days’ 
notice in writing, to obtain from such brewer or brewers particulars of the 
number of bulk barrels of each description of beer supplied and also a cer- 
tificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels repre- 
sented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the 
thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter 
period as the supply has continued. 

(2) The license holder shall, after forwarding any such certificate to 
the Commissioners, be entitled to obtain, during any corresponding quarter 
to which this act applies, the same number of standard barrels (reduced by 
15 per cent) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him 
therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer 
ceasing to supply the license holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in 
the certificate (less 15 per cent), and that amount shall be transferred to the 
brewer who has undertaken to supply; Provided that where the license 
holder is himself a brewer for sale the certificate shall not be used to obtain 
a transfer of barrelage to himself, and that where a certificate forwarded 


GREAT BRITAIN 95 


under this section relates to any quarter in which the license holder is sup- 
plied with beer by the brewer from whom he obtained the certificate, the 
number of barrels which-he is entitled to obtain from another brewer, and 
which are transferred accordingly, shall be reduced by the quantity with 
which he is so supplied. 

(3) In this section the expression “license holder” means the holder of 
an excise license authorizing the sale of beer whether wholesale or by retail; 
and includes, where any licensed premises have changed hands, the license 
holder for the time being; and where any premises on which beer is sold 
are under the management of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), 
the Central Control Board, and where the holder of the license is a manager 
managing the licensed premises on behalf of any other person or a tenant 
of any other person who controls the ordering of beer for the premises, the 
person who so controls the ordering of the beer. 

(4) This section shall apply to registered clubs as it applies to licensed 
premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club for the 
license holder. 

(5) Where, during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen 
hundred and sixteen, beer has been supplied by any brewer to a canteen 
held under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Admiralty, the same 
rights as are conferred under this section upon a license holder shall be 
exercisable in respect of that beer by the Secretary of State or Admiralty, 
as the case may be. 

6. The Board of Trade may, at the request of the Army Council, grant 
a special certificate to any brewer in Ireland authorizing him to brew beer 
in excess of the limits prescribed by this act if the addition is required for 
the use of military canteens in Ireland, and the amount of beer which that 
brewer is entitled to brew shall thereupon be increased by the number of 
barrels stated in the certificate, and this act shall have effect accordingly. 

7. In this act, unless the context otherwise requires— 


The expressions “brewer” and “brewer for sale” have the same mean- 
ing as in the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, and include the Central Control 
Board (Liquor Traffic), and the expression “beer” has the same mean- 
ing as in Part II of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910; 

The expression “brewery” means premises in respect of which a 
manufacturer’s license to a brewer for sale is in force; 

The expression “barrel” means the standard barrel containing thirty- 
six gallons of beer of original gravity of 1,055 degrees; 

The expression “quarter” means the three months commencing on 
the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, 
and the first day of October in any year; and 

The expression “Commissioners” means the Commissioners of Cus- 
toms and Excise. 


8. This act may be cited as the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, 
and shall apply to the quarter which commenced on the first day of April, 


96 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


nineteen hundred and sixteen, and to every subsequent quarter which com- 
mences during the continuance of the present war. 
Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916. 
(3rd August, 1916.) 
An act to put temporary restriction on the Output of Beer. 
From Public General Acts, 6 & 7 George V, 1916. Chapter 26, page 80. 


This act was amended in some unimportant details on Decem- 
ber 18, 1916, by what is known as the Output of Beer (Restric- 
tion) Amendment Act, 1916. Public General Acts 6 and 7 
George V, 1916, page 169. 

In order to handle the food question in a more efficient man- 
ner, Lord Devonport was appointed Food Controller on Decem- 
ber 9, 1916. This was an emergency measure, apparently 
without parliamentary authorization. On December 22, however, 
an act of Parliament known as the New Ministries and Secreta- 
ries Act, specifically authorized the appointment of a Minister 
of Food to be known as Food Controller. The following is the 
text of that portion of the act relating to the office in question: 


An act for establishing certain new ministries and for the appointment 
of additional secretaries or under secretaries in certain government. depart- 
ments; and for purposes incidental thereto. (22d December, 1916.) 


MINIstRY oF Foop 


3. For the purpose of economizing and maintaining the food supply 
of the country during the present war, it shall be lawful for his Majesty 
to appoint a Minister of Food under the title of Food Controller, who 
shall hold office during his Majesty’s pleasure. 

4. It shall be the duty of the Food Controller to regulate the supply 
and consumption of food in such manner as he thinks best for maintaining 
a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best for encour- 
aging the production of food, and for those purposes he shall have such 
powers or duties of any government department or authority, whether 
conferred by statute or otherwise, as his Majesty may, by Order in Council, 
transfer to him, or authorize him to exercise or perform concurrently with, 
or in consultation with, the government department or authority concerned, 
and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by regulations 
under the Defense of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and regulations 
may be made under that act accordingly. (Jbid., page 220.) 


An Order in Council of March 30, 1917, transferred to the 
Food Controller the powers which had been conferred upon the 


GREAT BRITAIN © 97 


Board of Trade by the Output of Beer. (Restriction) Act of 
1916. 


Now, therefore, etc., it is hereby ordered, as follows: 

1. The powers of the Board of Trade under Section 6 of the Output of 
Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, as amended by Section 4 of the Output of 
Beer (Restriction) Amendment Act, 1916, are hereby transferred to the 
Food Controller. 

2. This order may be cited as the Food Controller (Transfer of Powers) 
Order, 1917.1 


Subsequent restrictions upon the use of food materials in the 
manufacture of alcoholic liquors were in the form of orders 
issued by the Food Controller. 

First came a series of orders forbidding the making or ship- 
ping of malt, except under license by the Food Controller: 


THE BREWERS’ (MALT PURCHASES) ORDER, 1917 2 
Dated February 3, 1917 


In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by regulation 2r of the 
Defense of the Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him in 
that behalf, the Food Controller hereby orders as follows: 

1. Except under the authority of the Food Controller no maltster or 
dealer in malt shall on or after the 10th February, 1917, agree to sell any 
malt to any brewer for sale or make delivery to any brewer for sale of any 
malt other than malt deliverable under contracts made before that date. 

2. Except under the authority of the Food Controller no brewer for sale 
shall on or after the 10th February, 1917, agree to buy any malt or to take 
delivery of any malt other than malt deliverable under contracts made before 
that date. 

3. Except under the authority of the Food Controller no brewer for sale 
shall manufacture any malt from any barley agreed to be bought on or after 
the 10th February, 1917. 

4. For the purposes of this order—the expression “brewer for sale” 
shall mean any person who brews beer for the use of any other person at 
any place other than the premises of the person for whose use the beer 
shall be brewed and any person licensed to deal in wholesale or retail beer 
who brews beer. The expression “beer” includes ale, porter, spruce beer, 
black beer, and any other description of beer. The expression “malt” shall 
mean malt suitable ao use in the brewing of beer. 


1See Solicitors’ Foiiplar April 7, 1917, London, page 387. 
2 Defense of the Realm Manual,. Revised to May 31, 1917, page 266, London. 


98 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


5. Any person acting in contravention of this order is guilty of a sum- 
mary offense against the Defense of the Realm Regulations. 
6. This order may be cited as the Brewers’ (Malt Purchases) Order, 1917. 
Devonport, Food Controller. 


THE MALT (RESTRICTION) ORDER, 19171 
Dated February 20, 1917 


In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by regulation 2r of the 
Defense of the Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him 
in that behalf, the Food Controller hereby orders as follows: 

1. Except under the authority of the Food Controller no person shall 
manufacture from barley or any other cereals any malt suitable for use in 
the brewing of beer. 

2. This order shall not apply to barley or other cereals steeped at the 
date of this order. 

3. For the purposes of this order, the expression “beer” shall include ale, 
porter, spruce beer, black beer, and any other description of beer. 

4. If any person acts in contravention of this order or aids or abets any 
other person in doing anything in contravention of this order, that person 
is guilty of a summary offense against the Defense of the Realm Regulations, 
and if such person is a company every director and officer of the company 
is also guilty of a summary offense against those regulations unless he proves 
that the contravention took place without his knowledge or consent. 

5. This order may be cited as the Malt (Restriction) Order, 1917. 

Devonport, Food Controller. 


By the Malt (Restriction on Shipping) Order, 1917,? dated 
March 21, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the above 
regulation, it is provided as follows: 


1. Except under the authority of the Food Controller, no person shall 
export, ship, or consign any malt (a) from Ireland to any destination in any 
part of Great Britain, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man; or (b) from 
any part of Great Britain to any destination in Ireland the Channel Islands, 
or the Isle of Man. 

2. If any person acts in contravention of this order, or aids or abets 
any other person in doing anything in contravention of this order, that per- 
son is guilty of a summary offense against the Defense of the Realm Regu- 
lations, and if such person is a company, every director and officer of the 
company is also guilty of a summary offense against those regulations, unless 
he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or consent. 

The order comes into force on the 26th March, 1917. 

Devonport, Food Controller. 

1 Defense of the Realm Manual, Revised to May 31, 1917, page 267. 

2 [bid., page 271. 


GREAT BRITAIN 99 


THE MALT (RESTRICTION) NO. 2 ORDER, 19171 
Dated April 12, 1917 


In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Regulation 2r of the 
Defense of the Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him in 
that behalf, the Food Controller hereby orders as follows: : 

1. Manufacture of Malt—(a) Except under the authority of the Food 
Controller no person shall after the date of this order manufacture any 
malt from any cereals. 

2. Sale and Delivery of Malt—No person shall after the date of this 
order agree to sell any malt, or after the 14th April, 1917, make delivery 
of any malt except under and in accordance with the terms of a license 
issued by the Food Controller, or except to a brewer for sale in manner per- 
mitted by the Brewers’ (Malt Purchases) Order, 1917. 

3. Use of Malt—(a) Except under the authority of the Food Controller 
no person shall after the 14th April, 1917, use any malt for any purpose. 

(b) This article shall not apply to a brewer for sale so far as is necessary 
for enabling him to brew the maximum barrelage permitted to him under 
the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order, 1917. 

4. Penalty—Ili any person acts in contravention of this order, or aids 
or abets any other person, in doing anything in contravention of this order, 
that person is guilty of a summary offense against the Defense of the Realm 
Regulations, and if such person is also guilty of a summary offense against 
those regulations unless he proves that the contravention took place without 
his knowledge or consent. 

5. Title and Commencement of Order—This order may be cited as the 
Malt (Restriction) No. 2 Order, 1917. 

Devonport, Food Controller. 


Almost simultaneously, March 29, 1917, came a comprehen- 
sive order of the Food Controller, amending the Output of 
Beer (Restriction) Act of 1916. That act had cut down the 
output of beer from 36 to 26 million barrels. The Food Con- 
troller’s Order of March 29 reduced it to 10 million barrels. 

The text of the order follows: 


INTOXICATING LIQUOR (OUTPUT AND DELIVERY) ORDER, 1917 
Order of the Food Controller. Dated the 29th dav of March, 1917, and made 
under regulation 2F of the Defense of the Realm Regulations 2 


(Recitals): Now, therefore, etc., the Food Controller hereby orders as 
follows: 


1 Defense of the Realm Manual, Revised to May 31, 1917, page 273. 
2 Jbid., page 291. 


100 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


I—BEER 


1. (1) A brewer for-sale shall not brew at his brewery in any quarter 
more than the maximum barrelage for the quarter as determined under this 
order. 

(2) The maximum barrelage shall be determined for the purposes of 
this order in the same manner as under the Output of Beer (Restriction) 
Acts, 1916, except that— 

(a) In ascertaining the standard barrelage under Subsection 2 of Section 
2 of the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, 6634 per cent shall be sub- 
stituted as the amount of reduction where 15 per cent is under that provision 
the amount of reduction and 72 per cent shall be substituted as the amount 
of reduction where 30 per cent is under that provision the amount of reduc- 
tion; and, 

(b) Ten million barrels shall be substituted for twenty-six million barrels 
as the rate of the total output of beer in the United Kingdom under the 
proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 2 of that act; and, 

(c) In determining the maximum barrelage for the quarter commencing 
on the first day of April, 1917, or any subsequent quarter, any surplus bar- 
telage accrued in respect of any quarter previous to that commencing on 
the first day of April, 1917, shall not be taken into account. 

(3) Where it appears to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise 
(hereinafter referred to as the Commissioners) that, owing to the transfer 
of licensed premises from one brewery to another or for the purpose of 
meeting any change in the amount of beer required to meet the supply of 
any localities, it is expedient to transfer barrelage from one brewer to 
another, the Commissioners may by order make the necessary transfer, and 
the maximum barrelages of the respective brewers shall be increased or 
decreased accordingly. 

(4) The rights of brewers under Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 
Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, shall be suspended while this order 
is in force. 

(5) If the Food Controller at the request of the Army Council grants 
a special certificate to any brewer authorizing him to brew beer in excess of 
the limits prescribed by this order, on the ground that the addition is required 
for the use of military canteens, the amount of beer which that brewer is 
entitled to brew shall thereupon be increased by the number of barrels stated 
in the certificate; and this order shall apply accordingly. 

2. (1) The same provision shall be applicable in relation to the effect of 
this order on contracts as is applicable in relation to the effect of the Output 
of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, on contracts under Section 4 of that act. 

(2) License holders, and persons having the same rights as license hold- 
ers under Section 5 of the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, as 
amended by any subsequent act, shall have the same rights, and brewers 
shall be under the same obligations, in connection with the output of beer 
as limited by this order as under the said Section 5, except that the per- 
centage of reduction in the number of standard barrels which a license 
holder is entitled to obtain under that section and the reduction from the 


GREAT BRITAIN 101 


amount stated in the certificate for the purpose of ascertaining the reduction 
and transfer of maximum barrelage shall be increased so as to be 6326 per 
cent instead of 15 per cent. 

(3) Any brewer who has not given to a license holder any particulars 
or certificate which the license holder is entitled to obtain from him under 
Section 5 of the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, shall give the par- 
ticulars or certificate to the license holder within fourteen days after a 
request in writing therefor is made*by the license holder. 

(4) A brewer shall give to a license holder a copy of any certificate 
which has been obtained from him for the purpose of Section 5 of the Out- 
put of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, within fourteen days after a request 
in writing for the copy is made to him by the license holder showing that 
the certificate originally obtained is either lost or for some other reason not 
available for use by the license holder. 

(5) Where beer has been supplied to a license holder through a person 
recognized by the brewer as his agent— 

(a) The agent shall be under the same obligation to give particulars and 
certificates of the beer as if he was the brewer; and, 

(b) The beer shall be deemed to be beer supplied by the brewer to the 
license holder, and not by the brewer to the agent. 

3. Expressions to which a special meaning is attached by the Output of 
Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, have (unless the context otherwise requires) 
the same meaning when used in this part of the order. 


II—WInNE AND SPIRITS 


4. (1) No wine or spirits shall be delivered from ship’s side or ware- 
house (including a distiller’s spirit store) for home consumption on the pay- 
ment of duty to any person— 

(a) Unless he is the holder of an authority for the time being in force 
under this provision; 

(b) In excess of the amount which is authorized to be delivered to him 
under that authority; and, 

(c) Unless particulars as to the warehouse or place from which the wine 
or spirits are delivered, and of the amount delivered, and of the date of 
delivery are entered on the authority for delivery. 

(2) Authorities for the purposes of this provision shall be issued by the 
* Commissioners in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be 
prescribed by rules made for the purpose by the Treasury, and the Com- 
missioners shall attach to any authority so issued such conditions as they 
think fit for ensuring the proper distribution of the wine or spirits author- 
ized to be delivered. 

The rules made by the Treasury may provide for the appointment of a 
committee for the purpose of advising and assisting the Commissioners in 
the performance of their duties and the exercise of their powers under this 
part of the order. 

(3) Authority shall (except in cases where special directions are given 
by the Commissioners) be granted only to persons to whom or on whose 


102 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


behalf wine or spirits were delivered during the year 1916, and so that the 
total amount delivered to.that person during the year beginning on the first 
day of April shall not exceed the amount delivered to that person during 
the year 1916 reduced by 50 per cent. 

(4) This provision shall not prevent the delivery of spirits in cases where 
the Commissioners are satisfied that the spirits are— 

(a) Spirits delivered to a manufacturing chemist, or to a manufacturer 
of perfumes, for use in their manufactures; or, 

(b) Spirits delivered for scientific purposes; or, 

(c) Spirits supplied for the purpose of making medicines, to registered 
medical practitioners, to hospitals, and to persons, firms, and bodies cor- 
porate entitled to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist; 

But the Commissioners may attach conditions to the delivery of any spirits 
for those purposes in order to ensure their use for the purposes for which 
they are delivered. 

(5) A person shall not procure, or attempt to procure, the delivery of 
wine or spirits in contravention of this provision, or make any entry on an 
authority which is false in any material particular, or make any statement 
which is false in any material particular, for the purpose of obtaining any 
authority under this provision. 

Every person shall comply with any conditions attached by the Commis- 
sioners to an authority issued by them under this provision, or to the deliy- 
ery of spirits under this provision. 

If it is shown to the Commissioners that any condition attached by them 
to the issue of an authority under this provision has not been complied with, 
the Commissioners may, if they think fit, withdraw the authority; but the 
power of the Commissioners to withdraw the authority shall not prejudice 
the liability of the holder of the authority to any penalty to which he may 
be liable for not complying with the condition. 


ITI—GeENERAL 


5. Infringements of this order are summary offenses subject to penalties 
under the Defense of the Realm Regulations. 

6. This order may be cited as the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and De- 
livery) Order, 1917. 


29th March, 1917. Devonport, Food Controller. 


Subsequent orders modified in special ways the foregoing 
order, permitting an increase in the output of beer of not more 
than 33/4 per cent above the maximum therein prescribed. That 
is to say, instead of a maximum of 10 million barrels, a maximum 
of 13% million barrels was permitted. 

‘The Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order No. 2, 
1917, dated 7th July, 1917, made by the Food Controller under 
Regulations 2F and 2j of the Defense of the Realm Regulations 


GREAT BRITAIN 103 


provides that during the quarter commencing Ist July, 1917, a 
brewer may increase his maximum barrelage over that author- 
ized by the order of March 25 as follows: ; 
(a) By 20 per cent if he gives such notice and complies with such con- 
ditions as are hereinafter mentioned; 
(b) By such further amount, if any, as in his case may be authorized by 
license of the Food Controller. 


Provided the aggregate for the whole country shall not exceed that pre- 
viously permitted by more than 3314 per cent. 


The Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order No. 3, 
1917, dated 15th October, 1917, made by the Food Controller, 
continued the provisions of Order No. 2 for another quarter, 
commencing 1st October. Order No, 5, dated 24th December, 
1917, continued the increase for the quarter beginning January 
1eetO 18: 

By the end of 1917 the worst. of the food scare was over and 
the 3343 increase was continued from quarter to quarter. 

While, as suggested earlier in this chapter, hops are not food, 
nevertheless the growing of hops requires land and labor which 
might otherwise grow food. Without altogether destroying the 
hop growing industry, which is an important agricultural indus- 
try, especially in Kent, it was nevertheless desirable that hop 
growing should be reduced. In fact, the reduction in the brew- 
ing of beer seemed to make it absolutely necessary to reduce 
the production of hops. On May 19, 1917, a Defense of the 
Realm Regulation reduced the acreage devoted to hops to 50 per 
cent of that of 1914, as follows: 


Dated May 19, 1917 


(1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, the acreage cultivated 
with hops on any holding in England or Wales shall, before the 30th day of 
June, 1917, be reduced to one-half of the acreage on the holding which was 
so cultivated in the month of June, 1914, and thereafter, so long as this 
regulation remains in force, the acreage on the holding so cultivated shall 
never exceed that proportion, and if the occupier of any such holding fails 
to comply with this provision he shall be guilty of a summary offense against 
these regulations.1 


1 Defense of the Realm Regulations, Revised to September 30, 1917, 
page 12. 


104. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


(Under exceptional circumstances, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries 
may by license suspend this regulation with regard to particular individuals.) 


The use of grain, sugar or molasses for the distillation of 
spirits, except under license by the Minister of Munitions, was 
prohibited by a Defense of the Realm Regulation of May 10, 
19164 


30p. After the 28th day of May, 1916, no person shall without a permit 
issued under the authority of the Minister of Munitions, use or permit to 
be used, any grain, either malted or unmalted, rice, sugar, or molasses, or any 
other material which may for the time being be specified in an order issued 
by the Minister of Munitions, in or for the manufacture or production of 
whiskey or any other alcoholic spirits, and if any person acts in contravention 
of this provision, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a 
permit under this regulation has been granted, he shall be guilty of an 
offense against these regulations; and if such person is a company, every 
director, manager, and officer of the company shall also be guilty of an 
offense against these regulations, unless he proves that the contravention 
or failure took place without his knowledge or consent. 


Considerable quantities of immature spirits were, of course, 
stored up in warehouses. It became necessary to regulate their 
sale, otherwise there would be no necessary diminution in the 
consumption of spirits until these accumulated stocks were ex- 
hausted. Accordingly, the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and 
Delivery) Order, was issued by the Food Controller on March 
29, 1917,? reducing by 50 per cent the quantity of wine and 
spirits which could be delivered. 

The Food Controller, however, took control of the sale of 
spirituous liquors by forbidding their sale except under license 
of his office. This was accomplished early in 1918 by two 
orders, known as the Whiskey (Restriction on Sales) Order, 
1918, and the Rum and Gin (Restriction on Sales) Order, 
dated January 5, 1918, and January 17, 1918, respectively. Since 
all manufacturing of potable alcohol had been prohibited by a 
Defense of the Realm Regulation of May 10, 1916, there was 
no occasion for the Food Controller to exercise any control 


1 Defense of the Realm Manual, Revised to May 31, 1917, page 107. 
2 See ante, page 99. 


GREAT BRITAIN 105 


except over its sale. The accumulated stocks manufactured be- 
fore May, 1916, and those imported were all that were available 
for sale. 

The following is the text of the orders: 


THE WHISKEY (RESTRICTION ON SALES) ORDER, 19181 
Dated January 5, 1918 
1918. No. 12 


In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Defense of the 
Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the 
Food Controller hereby orders as follows: 

1. No whiskey shall be sold by auction except at an auction sale authorized 
to be held by the Food Controller. 

2. A person shall not, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any other 
person— 

(a) Buy, sell, or deal in; or, 

(b) Offer or invite an offer or propose to buy, sell, or deal in; or, 

(c) Enter into negotiations for the sale or purchase of or other dealing in 
any whiskey by way of wholesale sale, wholesale purchase, or wholesale . 
dealing; unless— 

(i) He is the holder of an authority granted by the Food Controller 
authorizing such sale, purchase, or dealing; or, 

(ii) He was immediately prior to the 30th September, 1914, a person 
holding a license to deal in intoxicating liquor by wholesale taken out in 
pursuance of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910; or, 

(iii) He is the manufacturer of the whiskey in question. 

3. In this order the expression “a wholesale sale’ shall mean a sale at 
any one time to one person of two gallons or more of whiskey, and the ex- 
pression “wholesale purchase” and “wholesale dealing’ shall have corre- 
sponding meanings. 

4. Nothing in this order shall prevent any person buying for the purposes 
of retail sale or for the purposes of any club to which Section 48 of the 
Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, applies, or a purchase by a person who proves 
that he is not buying for resale. 

5. Infringements of this order are summary offenses against the Defense 
of the Realm Regulations. 

6. This order may be cited as the Whiskey (Restriction on Sales) Order, 
1918. 

By Order of the Food Controller. 
U. F. Wintour, Secretary to the Ministry of Food. 


1 From Orders of the Food Controller under the Defense of the Realm 
Regulations, Revised to January 31, 1918, pages 111-112. 


106 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


THE RUM AND ‘GIN (RESTRICTION ON SALES) ORDER, 19181 
. Dated January 17, 1918 


In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Defense of the 
Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the 
Food Controller hereby orders as follows: 

1. No rum or gin shall be sold by auction except at an auction sale 
authorized to be held by the Food Controller. 

2. A person shall not, either on his own behalf, or on behalf of any other 
person— 

(a) Buy, sell, or deal in; or, 

(b) Offer or invite an offer or propose to buy, sell, or deal in; or, 

(c) Enter into negotiations for the sale or purchase of or other dealing in 
any rum or gin by way of wholesale sale, wholesale purchase, or wholesale 
dealing, unless— 

(i) He is the holder of an authority granted by the Food Controller 
authorizing such sale, purchase, or dealing; or, 

(ii) He was immediately prior to the 30th September, 1914, a person 
holding a license to deal in intoxicating liquor by wholesale taken out in pur- 
suance of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910; or, 

(iii) He is the manufacturer of the rum or gin in question. 

3. For the purposes of this order, the expression “wholesale sale” shall 
mean a sale at any one time to one person of two gallons or more of rum 
or gin, and the expressions “wholesale purchase” and “wholesale dealing” 
shall have corresponding meanings. 

4. Nothing in this order shall prevent any person buying for the purposes 
of a retail sale or for the purposes of any club to which Section 48 of the 
Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, applies, or a purchase by a person who proves 
that he is not buying for resale. 

5. Infringements of this order are summary offenses against the Defense 
of the Realm Regulations. 

6. This order may be cited as the Rum and Gin (Restriction on Sales) 
Order, 1918. 

By Order of the Food Controller. 
W. H. Bevertnce, Second Secretary to the Ministry of Food. 


1 Op. cit., pages 112-113. 


CHAPTER V 
Results 


We have seen that there were two distinct questions involved 
in the liquor problem in Great Britain, namely, the question of 
drunkenness and inefficiency on the one hand and the question 
of food conservation on the other. The efforts at the solution 
of the first question culminated in the creation of the Central 
Control Board (Liquor Traffic) with bureaucratic powers. For 
the solution of the second question, the office of Food Con- 
troller was created with autocratic powers. 

In attempting to appraise the results of the efforts of these 
two agencies, there is little that needs to be said regarding the 
efforts of the Food Controller. To cut down the production 
of beer from 36 to 13% million barrels a year cuts down in like 
proportion the materials used in its production, if the beer con- 
tains the same proportion of alcohol. If it contains a smaller 
proportion, still less starch and sugar are required. To prohibit 
altogether the use of grain, sugar and molasses for the distilla- 
tion of potable alcohol is to save outright all that would other- 
wise be used for that purpose. 

The effect of this legislation was that an output of 36,000,000 
barrels before the war was reduced in two stages to 18,200,000. 
It would mean a reduction in the use of barley of 286,000 tons, 
36,000 tons of sugar, and 16,500 tons of grits. Lord Devon- 
port also pointed out that it would set free for the use of 
agriculturists a greater percentage of offals than was previously 
produced from brewers’ grains. Whereas the brewers returned 
25 per cent of the barley as offals, the farmer would now have 
40 per cent after the other 60 had been made into flour. 


Three weeks later it was decreed that no new contracts must 
107 3 


108 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


be made for the delivery of malt to brewers nor must brewers 
make it for themselves. At this time it was shown that prac- 
tically no spirits were being distilled except for explosives. The 
query as to why the 140,000,000 gallons then in stock was not 
drawn upon instead of using new materials was replied to in 
the House by the official statement that it would not pay, 
although that step would be taken if found necessary. Ten days 
later the manufacture of malt was entirely forbidden except 
with the consent of the Food Controller. 

During these few weeks there had been much public discus- 
sion of the waste of food stuffs in the manufacture of beer, 
and the submarine menace was opening the eyes of the people 
to the seriousness of the shortage. The government took notice 
of popular feeling by revising the regulation issued only a month 
before, to come into effect in another month. The output of 
beer was cut down to 10,000,000 barrels, thus saving 600,000 
tons of foodstuffs. Toward the end of March, the sinkings of 
merchant vessels having become alarming, the various restric- 
tions seemed justified. Some attempt was made, both in England 
and France, to exempt French wines from the limitations, but 
the conditions did not admit of argument even on behalf of 
Allied nations. . 

As the law now stands, there are 367,000 tons of barley, 
21,420 tons of grits, and 44,700 tons of sugar being utilized 
for the manufacture of beer. Whether it is possible to con- 
vince the public that. much of that vast quantity of food can 
be better directed depends to a great extent on the future record 
of submarine sinkings. The demand for further reduction, and 
even for prohibition, is undoubtedly louder, although as yet not 
one of the powerful London papers has advocated the latter. 
It is a peculiarity of the standing of the English press that 
no such startling change could be effected without newspaper 
support. 

The chief difficulty is that of appraising the results of the 
liquor regulations upon drunkenness and the general efficiency 
of the nation. This problem divides itself into two parts; first, 


GREAT BRITAIN 109 


the demagogic results and second, the physiological results. Of 
these two, the first is most difficult to measure. 

By the demagogic results are meant the effects upon the loyalty 
and the morale of the people. It is quite conceivable that a 
measure which, from a purely physiological standpoint, that is, 
from the standpoint of physical health, muscular strength, 
manual skill, or mental alertness, would work well in every re- 
spect, might nevertheless prove disastrous if it provoked resent- 
ment or disloyalty, resulting in strikes, riots, or even an unwill- 
ingness to support by votes the administration in a vigorous 
prosecution of the war. To secure the vigorous support of the 
least intelligent and the least loyal part of any population it may 
be necessary to permit a certain amount of animal indulgence, 
even though it can be demonstrated that it is physiologically 
unnecessary or even injurious. The lower the state of civiliza- 
tion in any country, the more heavily does this factor count. A 
purely militant civilization, such as that of Germany, Austria 
and Turkey, makes systematic use of various forms of animal 
indulgence to provide inducements to military life and discipline. 

Sexual and alcoholic excitation are two forms of animal 
indulgence most economically and abundantly provided for by 
nature, and therefore these are made special agencies for hold- 
ing the loyalty and obedience of soldiers who have no ideals 
to fight for. But even in the highest civilizations there are 
always elements in the population, smaller or larger according 
to circumstances, who are unmoved by ideals and can only be 
moved by an appeal to their animal natures. This is always an 
element which may give trouble in a time of national crisis. 
Much as a statesman may dislike to do so, he may be compelled 
to placate this element. 

When the question of liquor control first came up in England, 
fears were expressed as to its effect upon various elements 
of the population, particularly the unskilled wage workers. 
Squeamishness need not deter us from remarking that, on the 
average, unskilled workers are less intelligent than skilled work- 
ers, and that the unskilled workers therefore constitute the least 


110 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


intelligent part of the population and the part least influenced 
by ideals and most influenced by sensuous appeals. The oppo- 
nents of liquor control were not squeamish about cautioning 
the public on this point, or even threatening that strikes and 
riots’ would result from a reduction of the beer allowance. 

The London Times of April 2, 1915, quoted from a circular 
said to have been issued by the Allied Brewery Traders’ Asso- 
ciation to the effect that: 


If the workers are deprived of what is actually to them’a necessary part 
of their daily food, are we not likely to be faced with dangers enormously 
greater than at present? Is it not merely a question for the government 
to devise means of bringing home to the workers engaged in the manu- 
facture of the munitions of war their responsibility to the nation and their 
coworkers in the trenches? 


In the New York Times for November 22, 1915, is an article 
stating that five hundred delegates to a conference of London 
trade unionists had just passed a resolution pledging themselves 
to resist to the utmost, “by open revolt if necessary,” the regula- 
tions lessening the hours during which liquor might be sold, to 
five hours a day, which were to go into effect November 29. 
The delegates represented the printing trades, postmen, railway 
and vehicle workers, molders, laborers and the workingmen’s 
clubs. The new regulations were described as an insinuation 
that workingmen were addicted to excessive drinking, which 
arose from a few isolated cases. The resolutions said the regu- 
lations were a direct incitement to workers to “lay down their 
tools.” 

In the issue for November 25, the New York Times contains 
an article which comments further on the attitude of the London 
trade unionists. It says that their cry is, “No beer before 
dinner, no work before dinner,” and that protest meetings were 
being held to decide how to defeat the regulations which would 
go into effect the next Monday. It also says that the trades 
union executives have been called into a conference to hear 


1Cf. Chapter II, page 61. 


GREAT BRITAIN 111 


Premier Asquith, Mr. McKenna and Walter Runciman, Presi- 
dent of the Board of Trade, discuss national finances and to 
consider the financial position of the nation in relation to organ- 
ized labor, the date set for the conference being December 1. 

These and other similar considerations were not without their 
effect upon the government. Neither the Central Control Board 
nor the Food Controller was willing to deal vigorously with 
the question. Restriction of the hours during which intoxicat- 
ing liquors might be sold, and reduction in the use of food 
materials in the manufacture of alcohol were both entered upon 
gradually and apologetically, the effort being always to go as 
far as it was felt to be safe to go in.the reduction of drunkenness 
and the avoidance of waste. But for the fear of bad effects 
upon public opinion, it is difficult to see what reasons could 
exist for allowing any drunkenness or any destruction of food- 
stuffs in a time like that. 

That euphonious phrase, “difficulty of enforcement,” is made 
to cover a multitude of shortcomings. When one asks oneself 
why it is difficult to enforce any law, one comes to the bald 
fact that it is because some people are unwilling to obey the 
law and will resist it. To resist a law which, in time of national 
crisis, is deemed by those responsible for the saving of the nation 
to be vital to the best interests of the country is to be disloyal. 
To fear to pass such a law because of the difficulty of enforcing 
it is to fear disloyalty. 

They who were charged with the task of reducing drunken- 
ness and conserving food were therefore in a position of great 
difficulty. They are not to be blamed for timidity. They were 
simply facing facts and dealing with difficult problems. Manag- 
ing a great war is as much a demagogic as it is a military or 
an economic problem. A nation. needs wet-nurses as much as 
it needs economists or generals. The Central Control Board, 
and, to a certain extent, the Food Controller, were charged with 
the highly important, but not very welcome, task of weaning 
the drinking portions of the population from alcoholic drink as 
fast as they would consent to be weaned. 


112 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


How far the fears as to the loyalty of the people were well 
grounded is difficult to find out. In the first place, the Central 
Control Board and the Food Controller were careful not to 
restrict drunkenness too closely, or to save too much food. The 
people were not put to a very severe test to see whether they 
would resist being deprived of the privilege of getting drunk 
or of wasting food or not. In the second place, such expres- 
sions of opinion as one can gather are somewhat contradictory. 
Many groups of laborers, as well as religious and other bodies, 
came out wholeheartedly in support of all measures of liquor 
control and food conservation. Other groups, both secular and 
clerical, opposed them. In some cases there were veiled threats, 
but it is difficult to tell just how much was meant. 

Probably the best evidence to be gathered was that obtained 
by the Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest. In most 
sections of the country, the commissioners found that liquor 
control had little or nothing to do with unrest. In the South- 
western Area and in Scotland, particularly, they found no com- 
plaint regarding liquor control. In the West Midlands Area 
and the Northeastern Area, they found strong objections. In 
the London and Southeastern Area and in the Northwestern 
Area, they found objections, but did not consider them serious. 

The following quotations from the Report of the Commission 
of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest for the different areas show 
the results of ‘the investigation: 


Report of the Commissioners for the Southwestern Area, page 3. July 12, 
1917. 


The limiting of the hours during which licensed premises may be opened 
for the sale of intoxicating liquor is no cause of unrest. There was some 
complaint, but not much, as to the price and scarcity of beer in certain 
localities. 


Report of the Commissioners for Scotland, page 12. July 10, 1917. 


It is a somewhat remarkable fact worth noting that in the whole course 
of the proceedings no complaint has beeri made from any quarter of the 
liquor restrictions being a cause of industrial unrest. No reference at all 
has been made to that subject. 


\ 
GREAT BRITAIN 113 


Report of the Commissioners for the West Midlands Area, page 9. July 
11, 1917. 


The commission were frankly amazed at the strength of the objections 
to the liquor restrictions. These came not only from men in the habit of 
drinking beer, but from those who were lifelong teetotalers and yet recog- 
nized the need of beer to those working on certain occupations. The question 
is threefold—one of hours, price, and scarcity. Of these, the last is by far 
the most galling. The limitation of hours, though unpopular, has been ac- 
cepted as a war necessity. The increase of price is resented chiefly because 
it is felt that brewers are making an undue profit, but the real grievance 
is the difficulty of obtaining the article. It must be remembered that we are 
dealing with men who all their lives have been accustomed to drink beer as 
when they want it. We hold no brief either for or against beer drinking, but 
we are convinced that that is a question which men must settle for them- 
selves, and that it must be recognized that beer is more than a drink. With- 
out going into the thorny question of whether it is a food, it certainly is a 
social habit or a custom of life, as two witnesses expressed it. We recom- 
mend to the government that the supply should be largely increased. We 
recognize that this may entail some weakening of the article, but we wish 
to impress upon the government that besides supplying beer they must sup- 
ply the sort that men want, and that quantity alone will not meet the case. 
In allotting the new supply, special regard should be had to areas which show 
largely increased population. 


Report of the Commissioners for the Northeastern Area, page 3. July 
12, 1917. 


As the result of their investigations the commissioners are able to state 
that the liquor restrictions have not generally led to the creation of indus- 
trial unrest. There are two aspects of this question, viz—(a) the effect of 
the Liquor Control Board’s restrictions regarding the hours during which 
intoxicating liquor can be supplied, and (b) the effect of the shortage of 
beer in consequence of the limited quantity which may be brewed. As 
regards the first aspect of the question there is a general consensus of 
opinion that the Board’s regulations have done good. It was, however, 
urged that the order which fixes the evening closing hour for licensed prem- 
ises in the Northeast Coast Area at 9 o’clock called for modification. It 
was alleged that the usual hour for men working overtime to knock off work 
was 9 o’clock, and that they ceased work before that hour in order to obtain 
refreshment before going home, or even refused to work overtime at all—in 
one instance it was averred that 300 men had declined to work any over- 
time—with the result in either case of a serious reduction in output. It was 
suggested to the commissioners that the Liquor Control Board should alter 
their order for the Northeast Coast, so as to bring it into line with the other 
parts of England in which the evening opening hours are generally from 
6.30 Pp. M. to 9.30 p. m. Certain employers, however, thought that this would 
be a mistake, and that the better plan would be to allow the men working 


114. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


overtime to get away at 8.30 p. m. or 8.45, so as to get refreshment before 
the closing hour. The attention of the Central Control Board has been 
called to this matter, and their local inspector has been prosecuting inquiries 
on the subject. The second aspect of the question, viz., shortage of supplies 
of beer combined with the present exorbitant prices, has led to rather more 
resentment. Rightly or wrongly, the workers are convinced that beer is an 
indispensable beverage for men engaged in the so-called “hot” or “heavy” 
trades. If it were demonstrated that a reduction of brewing was necessary 
in the interests of food conservation, there is no reason to doubt that all 
classes would loyally acquiesce in whatever diminution was deemed essential, 
but the belief is prevalent that certain parties are endeavoring to use the 
national exigencies as an excuse for forcing on prohibition, and to this the 
great body of workers are bitterly opposed. There was no evidence whatever 
that excessive drinking existed, and the workers’ representatives made it 
clear that they had no sympathy with men who drank to excess. It is the 
view of the commissioners that unless the national demands for food require 
it, no further curtailment of the supply of beer in munition areas should 
take place, and that if it were possible to give a reasonable supply of beer 
to the munition areas at more moderate prices, this would in no degree 
impair the efficiency of the workers, and would have a good effect, as indi- 
cating sympathy with the legitimate desire of the workers for reasonable 
refreshment at a price within their means. 


Report of the Commissioners for the London and Southeastern Area, page 4. 
July 12, 1917. 


There is general recognition that the restriction on the sale of beer and 
the increase in the price of it has produced hardship, ill feeling, and irrita- 
tion among the large industrial population accustomed to take beer at their 
principal meals. Even a teetotaler objected on behalf of his union to the 
bad effect the restrictions had on men against whom no reflection of intem- 
perance could be suggested. 

In trades where heavy labor and heat rapidly exhaust the moisture of 
the body the withholding of beer results not only in a sense of hardship 
but also in bad effects upon health. 

The institution of canteens has not had the effect of reducing the feeling 
of irritation in regard to cost of food, and the inability to procure suitable 
foods. In many cases the food provided at the canteens has not been satis- 
factory, and the sameness of the food has militated against the success of 
the movement. No adequate arrangement has been made to meet the rea- 
sonable requirements of workers in the matter of refreshment, a difficulty 
which is in great part due to the large influx of outside labor. In the 
large munition areas difficulties have been experienced owing to the limita- 
tion of hours during which liquor traffic is permitted, particularly in the 
case of overtime and night work. There appears to be inequality amounting 
to absurdity in the distribution of supplies, e.g., in Woolwich, a place to 
which there is an enormous daily immigration, public houses are frequently 
closed for days together on account of want of supplies. 


GREAT BRITAIN 115 


Page 8 


Some relaxations of the existing restrictions on the use of beer might, 
we think, be made with advantage in cases of’ prolonged and exhausting 
labor, especially where men are exposed to great heat. 

It is obviously necessary that the administration should see to the more 
equitable distribution of the supply, having regard to the number of the day 
population as distinct from the resident population. 


Report of the Commissioners for the Northwestern Area, page 25. July 
16, 1917. 

Whilst we consider that the liquor restrictions are a cause of unrest and 
are disliked as an interference with liberty by all classes, we consider that 
they contribute to unrest rather than cause it. As an employer sensibly 
observed to us: “I should not call the liquor restrictions a cause of unrest, 
but I should unhesitatingly say they are a source of a considerable loss of 
social temper.” This, we think, was wisely said, and the matter should be 
sensibly dealt with, not from the high ideals of temperance reformers, whose 
schemes of betterment must be kept in their proper place until after the war, 
but from the human point of view of keeping the man who has to do war 
work in a good temper, which will enable him to make necessary sacrifices 
in a contented spirit. 

Now, from the days of that good Christian Socialist, Charles Kingsley, 
until this present, there have been a large number of human beings, some of 
the best citizens in the country, to whom beer is not only a beverage but a 
sacred national institution. They think, perhaps wrongly, that it is necessary 
for their work, and when you want them to give the nation their best work 
it is an utterly stupid thing to deny to them a small luxury which throughout 
their lives they have been used to receive. There would be much more sense 
in depriving England of tobacco, but it would not help to win the war. 

The way the matter has been put before us by sensible men and women 
who are not faddists—and it is only fair to say that the teetotalers who have 
spoken to us on the subject recognize, like sensible men, that this is not the 
time to seek to enforce their political mission—is that a reasonable amount 
of beer for workers who are used to it and want it should be given to them. 
We find that the hours of restriction are not seriously objected to by the 
community. The women decidedly approve of them, and the men generally 
are inclined to accept them during the war, but they consider that they work 
hardly on certain classes of men. Workers in foundries, such as molten- 
metal carriers and others who work under terrible conditions of heat and 
have hitherto been used to a pint of ale when they leave work, say, at 5.30, 
hang about waiting for the houses to open, and this is very undesirable. 
Again, in Liverpool and other places it is found impossible to keep men on 
urgent work overtime at nights past 9 o’clock because they desire to quench 
a natural human thirst in the way they are accustomed to do. Societies of 
Buffaloes and Odd Fellows and similar institutions, who are used to meet 


116 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


after their day’s work and take their ease at their inn and settle business 
over a social glass, can no longer do so. The problem is a human problem, 
and must be dealt with at the moment not from any ideal standpoint, but 
by recognizing that you can not get the best work out of a human being by 
unnecessary interference with the course of life to which he has been 
accustomed. 

Far more important than hours of restriction, which could probably be 
easily arranged by giving local privileges to special classes of men, is the 
more serious cause of unrest about the price of beer and the quality sup- 
plied. Government control, if it allows the public houses to be open at all, 
should at least insist that the quality of the beer is good, and that reasonable 
quantities of it are supplied at fair and reasonable prices. The chief con- 
stable of the County of Lancaster, who thoroughly understands the condi- 
tions of this industrial area, writes to us that it would be a good thing if 
public houses remained open until 10 Pp. m., and he considers that “the 
workingmen—especially colliers, ironworkers, and men engaged on the land 
—have had a legitimate grievance in not being able to procure a good, whole- 
some beer at a reasonable price.” With this opinion your commissioners 
heartily agree. 


From these extracts it will be seen that the chief objections 
were not to the restricted hours during which liquor might be 
purchased, but to the sheer scarcity of it. This led to recom- 
mendations that a slight increase in the production of beer be 
permitted in certain areas in order to ease up the situation. 

From the fact that the Central Control Board, the Food Ad- 
ministrator and this Commission of Inquiry into Industrial 
Unrest all showed great caution and a willingness to compromise 
and placate, we must conclude that there was serious danger of 
bad demagogic results. These men were probably in a better 
position to judge of those matters than any one else. The fact 
that bad demagogic results did not follow must be ascribed to 
their wisdom and tact in handling a difficult situation. 

As to the physiological and economic effects, our best evidence 
is found in the reports of the Central Control Board itself. The 
reduction of the convictions for drunkenness is a tangible and 
measurable fact. This implies also a reduction in the amount 
of time lost through drunkenness, and an increased general 
efficiency, but this is not measurable with any approach to 
exactitude. 

The following paragraphs are quoted from the First Report 


GREAT BRITAIN M7 


of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) dated 12th 
October, 1915: 


7. Since the orders of the Board came into force every opportunity has 
been taken to judge of the practical effect of the restrictions imposed and of 
the other measures enacted. 

The Board have obtained from the chief constables in the first 12 areas 
scheduled figures showing particulars of prosecutions and convictions for 
drunkenness in each of the four weeks immediately prior to the commence- 
ment of the order and in each week since it came into force. 

They have also received from a number of chief constables, medical 
officers of health, employers of labor, men’s representatives, and from philan- 
thropic associations, opinions upon the working and effects of the order. 

In addition, they have been able to secure the services of Mr. Sanders, 
Clerk to the Liverpool Justices, who has specially visited for them most of 
the areas which have been dealt with, some of them on more than one occa- 
sion since the orders came into force, for the purpose of reporting to the 
Board upon the effects of the orders. 

8. Speaking broadly, the information obtained points to the following 
conclusions, which must necessarily be regarded as provisional, owing to the 
short duration of the experience. 

There has been a considerable diminution in the number of both the 
Prosecutions and the convictions for drunkenness. The prosecutions for 
drunkenness in the first eight areas scheduled in England and Wales, on an 
average of the four weeks prior to the commencement of the order in each 
area subsequent to the commencement of the orders for the respective 
areas, has fallen to 417, a decrease of over 40 per cent. The corresponding 
figures for the first two areas scheduled in Scotland are 695 and 585. 

Detailed returns received from some areas show that of persons charged 
some have more than 100 previous convictions, many more than 50, and a 
considerable proportion more than 20. The uselessness of applying fine and 
imprisonment to cases of this character with a view to their reform requires 
no demonstration. It is also probable that in such cases little amelioration 
can be effected through the available methods of restriction. The Board 
are of opinion that inquiry and research might usefully be made with a view 
to discovering some method of treatment giving better hope of effective cure. 

In addition to the foregoing figures for prosecutions for drunkenness, to 
which undue importance should not be attached, there is abundant evidence 
that drinking has diminished in many of the areas. Many witnesses, speak- 
ing of their own areas, mention improved public order, a better condition 
in the streets, and an improved condition of the children; and the Board 
have received evidence that money which was formerly spent in excessive 
drinking is now either deposited in savings banks or used to improve the 
home. 

An interesting corroboration of the improvement in general conditions is 
the fact reported by observers that the general trade of the scheduled areas 
has been particularly good in articles commonly required by the working 


118 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


classes, the inference being that the trades which cater for these requirements 
have profited by a diversion of purchasing power. 

On September 24 the Board held a conference of chief constables from 
areas scheduled in England and Wales, at which the unanimous opinion 
was expressed that better order and behavior had prevailed generally since 
the coming into force of the Board’s orders, and that this result was due 
particularly to the prohibition of “treating” and of credit sales, and to the 
restriction of hours. The same views have been expressed by a number of 
chief constables in areas scheduled in Scotland. 

These initial results augur well for the future, though it would be rash 
to assert at this stage that all the improvement obtained will be permanent. 

With regard to the efficiency of the workmen, and the increase of output, 
some time is required before an opinion can properly be expressed. Up to 
the present few reports have been received from firms engaged in the manu- 
facture of munitions. Time-keeping appears better in certain areas, and 
from all areas reports have been received indicating an improved condition 
of the men coming to work in the morning. 

Reports from the harbor cities state that great improvement in working 
conditions has resulted from the Board’s action. Drunkenness among sail- 
ors, firemen and dock laborers has diminished, crews signed on are more 
sober, and ships are able to get away with much less delay. 

In some areas difficulties, or even disturbances, were anticipated as not 
unlikely to follow the enforcement of restrictions so drastic as those imposed 
by the Board’s orders. It is therefore satisfactory to be able to report 
that the orders have taken effect with but little friction, and without any 
breach of public order. 


The following is quoted from the Second Report of the 
Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) dated 1st May, 1916. 


CHAPTER VII 


EFFECTS OF THE Boarp’s ORDERS 


In this chapter it is proposed to collect and set forth statements and par- 
ticulars which have reached the Board from various sources, showing the 
influence of the Board’s orders upon the life of the nation, and their effects 
in preserving and raising the general standard of that efficiency which is so 
necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. This will be done 
partly by means of such facts and figures as lend themselves to statistical 
treatment, and partly by means of a representative selection of the expressed 
opinions of responsible public authorities. 

Under the first head the material available consists of the figures of the 
convictions for drunkenness. The extent to which these figures can properly 
be regarded as bearing upon efficiency, and the care which must be exercised 
in drawing conclusions or inferences from them, will be referred to later. 


GREAT BRITAIN 119 


Here it will be sufficient to observe that public drunkenness—to which alone 
these figures, relate—constitutes but one part of the problem with which it is 
the duty of the Board to deal. 

The Board have obtained from the chief constables in scheduled areas 
weekly returns of convictions for drunkenness from the date at which the 
orders for the respective areas became operative. These returns, shown sep- 
arately for the several areas or parts of areas, and summarized in tabular 
form, are given in the appendix to this report. It is well known that the 
figures of convictions for drunkenness had been rising during the five years 
1909-1913, that a tendency to fall became apparent in 1914, and in the earlier 
months of 1915, and it will be observed from Table I of the appendix that 
there was a heavy fall upon the operation of the Board’s orders, a fall 
which has been well maintained up to the latest date for which comparative 
figures are available. The particulars given in the tables printed in the 
appendix will repay detailed attention, but the following figures, which have 
been selected from four of the chief industrial areas, constitute a fair illus- 
tration of the general tendency of the figures relating to England and Wales: 


WEEKLY AVERAGE OF CONVICTIONS FOR 
DRuUNKENNESS 


First 6 4 weeks | 4 weeks Pas 


before | following 
AREA District 1914 months iesichs || ieaaeS weeks 


order order 191 


Northeast t eae and seven 
other Boroughs....| 166 | 159 201- 107 111 
Liverpool one ieee and three 


Mersey.... other poet sll. PAS) A BES 225 123 128 
: Birmingham and six 
Midlands ... other Boroughs.... 88 48 74. 22 27 
West Riding 
ras reehire i Twelve Boroughs....}| 131 94 97 44 54 


The figures for the London area are equally striking. In this area a 
No Treating Order began to operate on October 11, 1915; the full order 
restricting hours, etc., on November 29. The record of convictions for 
drunkenness in the City and the Metropolitan Police District is as follows: 


Weekly Average for 


OMAR tee eee arc soe, et ctor ats \cienate aheter ete foretacata: siswiolatenslanete rae olaytistelé Alois b's ae 1,301 
IS ERSER tL OLitlTS) Ok MOM OM einaieien ie terete reiting UUM EU IRD IO eR toe 1,077 
Four weeks before No Treating Order of October 11, 1915............ 1,008 
Rounweeksmtol lowing © ctober willsec ccc ccsies alsieieec cle sicistere nie oiseis cieisicte ic. 718 
Four weeks before full Order of November 29....................000- 859 
Three weeks following November 29................20cccccccccsecees 606 
Two weeks ending January 2, 1916 (Christmas period)................ 950 
Ri Staeiointmwieekseo tel OlG weiss, cee cian mien ie eve tree all ateee ee ere teraieiate one «save ace 603 


For London and the whole of the English and Welsh boroughs specified 


120 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


in Table I, of the appendix, the figures of convictions for drunkenness are :— 


Weekly Average for 


TODS wise ereparesceaterghel a des gate Wiscatend alae chs Sopa a atenaid elo orale ny a ee 2,034 
First six months of 1915 (Naval, Military, or Licensing Justices’ Re- 
strictive Orders operating in most boroughs)..............-.+-.ee- 1,690 
The four weeks following the Board’s orders (in 1915)............... 1,071 
The eight weeks ending February 27, 1916.................2c0cceeeeeee 978 
The four weeks ending March 26, CT 940 


For the Scottish areas specified in Table III the figures for all offenses 
“nvolved in drunkenness or committed while under the influence of drink” 
are :— 

Weekly average for the 4 weeks preceding the Board’s 
orders,iGin’ 1915) acAsicie. cio ee eneoen pene eee 1,434 


Weekly average for the 4 weeks following the Board’s 
OFGORS rsa y oor tas ers aie eiakelete es ore hee eR CRI e ae eee 1,125 


stoke ssh MERE Ro [e. 0nd ae te ees a i, 992 
Weekly average for the 4 weeks ending March 26, 1916... 794 


The extent to which convictions for drunkenness have de- 
clined is illustrated by the following graphs: 


WEEKLY AVERAGES OF CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS 
Lonpon anv 40 BoroucHs IN ENGLAND AND WALES 
Population, 13,516,586 
TEES eee 
(2039)) | copay _| movers 
Se 
RGR RVAERSENe.. 
Hbabaeee 
Pm eS cn Oe P| Pala 
CPR EC ECC 
Pf) LS 
ic ae a aie: 
CEP ECE PEP Eo 
Pl eee ee 


(See explanation of graphs on page 123.) 


GREAT BRITAIN 121 


BoroucHs IN MipLtanps AREA 
Population 1,236,233 


1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 T1915 1916 


| t After | Av.of 4 weeks 
(106) (106 order ending-Jdan.30 


PERSSOREn Ge Mert 
A a 
ay) 23 


BoroucHs 1N West Rininc AREA 
Population, 1,782,045 


1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1916 


EEE EEE EEE 
eas 

SERRE EE 
2) es ee 


122 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


LIVERPOOL 


Population, 753,353 


1909 1910 __‘1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1916 


ee eee [| meine | SSF raid Japesa 
Pt Tt | ee ee LC 
BRERA ANEaES 
PEt TA ee ee 


4.0 


3.5 


Ft | feed TL TLS Goo la 
bol | 
Prat PA | LL 
ot tt ee aaa 
PU eee 
ott EE 
PEE Ee ee 
po Ee Oe ae 


Boroucus in NortHeast Coast AREA 
Population, 860,220 
1910 ma 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1016 
TT tT TT TY TT Goo [rsttins | creer Prtfe tape] 
(165) order ‘ending Jan.30 
aaa Tie ae OG a-e 
147) 
! 
Sra | ee Nae 


Co ae 

et aa PS SESE 
COCCE ELL Se 
LLL LL 
ue 
PEELE oe a) 


1.0 


GREAT BRITAIN 123 


Lonpon (MeEtropoLitaN Potice District AND City) 
Population, 7,250,000 (approximate) 


1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1916 


1sti6 Afte 
Pt TTT TT TT YT | fstins] eget rasta eso 
a IE a 8 ee 


(59 
Penimenm@n ial liNet 


EXPLANATION OF GRAPHS 


The graphs show the weekly averages of convictions for drunkenness in 
areas scheduled before December, 1915. 

The dot on each vertical line gives this average for the year or other 
period indicated at the head of the line. The figure above the dot is the 
actual weekly average for that period, and the figure below the dot is the 
same average shown as a proportion of each 10,000 of the population, for 
which the 1911 census figure has been taken, possible fluctuations in popula- 
tion, due to causes ordinarily operating or to the war, being disregarded. 

The figures of convictions for 1909-1914 have been taken from the annual 
“Licensing Statistics”; those for the later periods have been supplied by the 
police. The figures on the line headed “1915 after order’ in the first graph 
represent the average for periods which varied with the dates at which the 
orders came into force in the several areas included in the graph, the earliest 
of these dates being August 2d, and the latest November 29th. 

With regard to the figures for 1916 it should be noted that convictions 
for drunkenness in January are usually below the general average of the 
year. 


124. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


The figures just given and those in the appendix show that in each area 
in England and Wales where the orders of the Board have operated there 
has been a notable decline in convictions for drunkenness. The curves in the 
graphs indicate that the restrictions imposed during the first year of the war 
by Justices or by the naval or military authorities led to an immediate de- 
crease in convictions, that this decrease was rapidly accelerated when the 
Board’s orders were issued, and that the subsequent improvement has been 
progressive, and still continues. 

The considerations which may be urged against placing an undue reliance 
upon the figures of convictions for drunkenness are well known. The cus- 
toms and the standards of the public, the police, and the magistrates vary 
widely from one locality to another, and have in the past tended to vitiate 
comparisons between different places or even between different periods in 
the same place. Moreover, it may be agreed that numerous special causes 
due to the war may partly account for the results shown. Such considerations, 
however, do not materially modify the inferences which must be drawn from 
figures which show such rapid changes, and such consistent tendencies as are 
presented by the foregoing graphs and by the fuller particulars recorded in 
the appendix. 

These figures relate only to public drunkenness. The effect of the Orders 
on such matters as improved timekeeping, or enlarged output of munitions, 
or on the general efficiency of persons who ordinarily drink intoxicating 
liquor, but not to such excess and under such conditions as to involve their 
arrest for drunkenness, is a matter rather of opinion than of ascertained fact. 
Representative opinions on this question, derived from a large number of per- 
sons or bodies well qualified to judge, are given in the succeeding paragraphs. 


Reports RECEIVED THROUGH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 


The scheduling of a large proportion of the areas which have successively 
been made subject to the Board’s orders has been due to requests or sugges- 
tions made by the Admiralty, who have throughout kept the Board informed 
of the general results of the Board’s orders upon naval efficiency, including 
the efficiency of the work of naval yards and of the Naval Transport and 
other auxiliary services. The most recent authoritative expressions of opinion 
on this matter, which come from Admirals and other officers in important 
commands, are summarized by the Admiralty as confirming reports received 
earlier in the year that “the general effect of the restrictions has been de- 
cidedly beneficial.” In the latest report received from the Admiralty (28th 
March, 1916), it is stated that “Transport officers are unanimously of the 
opinion that the restrictions have had a considerable benefit upon the effi- 
ciency of the Transport Service, and the principal officer at Southampton 
has commented on the increased efficiency and good health of all the labor 
at the docks.” 

Similar results have been reported by the military authorities. Thus, in 
October, 1915, the Army Council based a request to the Board to undertake 
a further extension of areas so as to include certain localities (which they 
specified) where troops were concentrated, on “the satisfactory results 


GREAT BRITAIN 125 


which are being obtained from the closing orders which have been made 
by the Central Control Board in the areas already scheduled.” The Army 
Council informed the Board on January 29, 1916, that “reports have now 
been received from the various commands, the general effect of which is to 
show that the orders of the Board have had a beneficial effect on the disci- 
pline, training, and efficiency of soldiers, and have helped in the recovery 
of sick and wounded.” 

_ Statements have also been received, through the Board of Trade, from 
the larger ports with regard to the effects of the Board’s orders, which are 
singularly uniform in their testimony to the advantages secured, the bene- 
ficial results being mainly attributed to the shortening of the hours during 
which intoxicating liquor can be obtained. The work of the ports and docks 
is reported to proceed with improved punctuality and efficiency, and in gen- 
eral it is affirmed that increased sobriety among sailors, firemen, and dock 
laborers enables ships to get away and to proceed to sea with greater dis- 
patch than was the case before the Board’s restrictions were introduced. 


Cuter CoNSTABLES 
Under the Liquor Control Regulations the duty of enforcing the Board’s 
orders rests with the police, and the Board have from the first endeavored 
to keep in close touch with the heads of the police force in scheduled areas. 
They held special conferences with them in the autumn of 1915, and they 
have received frequent reports from them since the orders have been 
operative. 


Thirty towns and one county in England and Wales from 
which reports were received testified to the favorable effects of 
the restrictions, especially in regard to drunkenness in the streets, 
drunkenness among women, care of children, loss of time in 
factories and assaults and disturbances due to drunkenness. 

In regard to Scotland, the Second Report says: 


Various circumstances have contributed to make the successful operation 
of the Board’s orders in Scotland more difficult than in England. While 
the attitude of the majority of the licensees was that of loyal support to 
the Board’s orders, there were in the earlier months of the Board’s work 
many instances to the contrary. The imposition of comparatively trivial 
penalties for breaches of the orders, and certain adverse legal decisions by 
sheriffs—since reversed by the higher courts—may be said to have disposed 
license holders who were not well affected to the policy of restriction, to dis- 
regard the provisions of the orders. The Board have recently taken steps 
to enforce respect for the law; 17 licenses, in cases of proved misconduct, 
have been suspended for the remainder of the period for which they were 
granted, and it is now possible to report an improvement in the situation. 


From 13 towns and 7 counties in Scotland come reports of 
good results from the restrictions of the Board. The reports 


126 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


lay stress on the general decrease of drunkenness among males 
and females, on more orderly conduct and improved workman- 
ship and timekeeping. 

The report goes on to say: 


The Board have also received a valuable mass of evidence regarding the 
beneficial results of their orders upon public health and efficiency from 
licensing authorities, medical officers of health, resident surgeons of hos- 
pitals, and numerous other officials and voluntary workers whose duties 
bring them into close touch with the industrial life of the nation. At a time 
when the whole community is engaged in the prosecution of the war these 
opinions have a definite bearing upon the questions dealt with in this chapter, 
but the Board have preferred to confine the chapter, so far as the publication 
of expressed opinions is concerned, to statements received from government 
departments and public officials directly concerned with the effects and ad- 
ministration of the orders. 


In the Third Report of the Central Control Board (Liquor 
Traffic) dated 10th August, 1916, Appendix I, are the following 
tables: 


GREAT BRITAIN iW27, 


TABLE I 


WEEKLY AVERAGES OF CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS * IN AREAS SCHEDULED 
UP TO THE END or 1916 


For the 
four weeks 
immediately For the four weeks ending 
Area. before For Jan. 28, Feb. 25, Mar. 25, 
the order. 1916. 7 1917. 1917. 1917. 
Areas in England and Wales: 
Wom doris erersisre ts ia titcracis eee ne ae sivas 1011 568 568 476 428 
SHonmelihen terra yorttors wisyesercasing caves sas 
Sottheasterttresaen tis acisemerse sec gate 
Southern Military and Transport...... 
Basten nn nccin me cruslaricewen cieecakess 
BYBsioll einGl IBA Gogugasoueuseuenouee 140 82 65 69 58 
West Gloucestershire ................ 
JaleReiOnGl Gaouditocseien aoe aoe ce 
lyarrotitht weischve ie siete als esisie aie aisie sie eles 
Balinouthmca ce setae soles cinisinncaie so 
INdirclllatsrd swry sete reteveretcrorets ore eretelalet ic Siacace «rats 
Basie MNGi, nocsoasanaasasbenan enor i 190 92 70 59 60 
StatondShineoresosnecc woes cctecees eae. 
Tancasiite and) @heshire: s... 4. s00c-- 431 293 232 226 210 
Wiest. Ritdiingrean = csrersstecisiaeyecicle oem «ile 
chem Dery eects cine sore ctetanieiie sice cette } 238 141 129 128 102 
INontheaste Coasteewrrrer eeciweciew ove ts 320 182 143 128 121 
Western Border (English part)....... 25 42 30 36 28 
Welsh (i.e.,Wales and Monmouthshire) 116 87 77 71 68 
TROUT SA NRETGOR CACC Da aE ete rrae 2471 1487 1314 1193 1075 
Areas in Scotland: 
Western Border (Scottish part)....... 23 25 13 16 16 
Scotland, Hast Central’... 2...2...5--- 258 169 139 153 124 
Scotland, West Central .............. 963 611 534 471 441 
Scotland, Nore AN acy ole ec oe Ae 
Scotland, Northwestern .............. 
Scotland, North) Coast --oseseees se o r24l 142 127 112 99 
Orkney and Shetland ................ J 
MIR tel ese Pa crew exchevs iv, heehee st Sere ie 1485 947 813 752 680 
Areas in Great Britain, Total.......... 3956 2434 2127 1945 1755 


*In these tables of convictions for drunkenness the figures for England 
and Wales include the convictions for simple drunkenness, drunkenness with 
agegravations, and drunkenness at the same time as other distinct offenses; 
the figures for Scotland include the convictions for all offenses involving 
drunkenness or committed while under the influence of drink. 

} The whole year, or, if the order came into force in 1916, the part subse- 
quent to the commencement of the order. 


128 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


TABLE II 

CoNVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS IN GREATER LONDON AND THE 36 BorouGHS 
IN ENGLAND AND WALES WITH A POPULATION OF Over 100,000 

Greater London (Metropolitan Police District 


and City)— 

Population (1911), 7,467,307. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 
MieaT eG . Vans, Sane ah oct eee neves SSE Se ee SECT 48,535 49,077 35,866 19,478 
Hemalevcemne ccs ctes ce eee ee 16,953 18,577 15,970 9,975 
Totals Wy. Lunas eee te eee 65,488 67,654 51,836 29,453 

Boroughs, England and Wales (36)— 

Population (1911), 8,406,372. 

ING ATE LZ ei ctok 2 i emetic Ae eer ee 41,380 38,577 27,041 17,233 
Pemaled pict aera hse ae a ie mr eens sara ey 11,399 11,258 9959 6,097 
RG CIM Sel ano arma Goh 52,779 49,835 37,000 23,330 
Rotal Male Eonvictionsen 41.2242 eee: 89,915 87,654 62,907 36,711 
otal Female Convictions -- eee. eaea-ee eee 28,352 29,835 25,929 16,072 
ENO GALS a7 Ge ele oo eee eee ne 118,267 117,489 88,836 52,783 


TABLE III 


CoNVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS IN GREATER LONDON FOR THE FIRST QUARTER 
oF EacuH oF THE Last Five YEARS 


1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 
13,900 16,007 14,076 7,744 6,176 
TABLE IV 


CoNVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS IN GLASGOW 
(1) Before and After the Order (2) For the First Quarter of the 


of the Board Last Five Years 
Weekly Average— Male. Female. Total. 
For first six months of 1915.. 522 First Quarter of— 
After Order (Aug. 23) to end NO SR ARM 4,220 1,633 5,853 
Of AGI. Ji eet eee roe eee 444 MUA: se Sepeh eee 5,156 1,771 6,927 
For four weeks ending— HOS ek ene 4,594 1,697 6,291 
Jianwarya 50) 1OlGse se eeeee 340 NOM Graesccys eee 2,866 1,172 4,038 
iBebriaty, 27, 1916. ee ee er ean 370 ONT ce caretmertens 2,128 1,025 3,153 
March e265 d9l6n.. sare see 236 
Alp rile23; IOI: rence aie: eee 252 
Mayr Zier clOlGs see meter cee 245 
June 18) 1916 Wee ein ae 332 
i albypl OOS Race ceereiaee 342 
Aneist ids TOlO ys jane eee ae 349 
September 10, 1916......... Sul 
October’ S1916y-Aeee eee 359 
November 6, 1916.......... 328 
December 3, 1916........... 328 
December 31, 1916.......... 350 
January, 28.0 Olea ea 286 
Bebritany Zosnlolene acer 234 


March 25; LONER racrneearrs 213 


GREAT BRITAIN 129 


TABLE V 


Breer AND Spirits CHARGED WITH Duty ror Home CoNSUMPTION IN THE 
Unitep Kincpom 


eer, Spirits, 
Financial Year. Standard Barrels. Proof Gallons. 
(SU 2 AG ici yor irae Ont ict 35,372,000 32,596,000 
MN te, So, cinieaereiccaretom cn tap ombe ein’) ols ai oeners 32,525,000 34,345,000 
COL Se CoG ai hee HES MOINS bre maine MORSE Ce coe 29,626,000 35,597,000 
POIGO17 a (provisional) f-20e. ye. asiesses once ers 25,905,000 23,998,000 
TABLE VI 


DeaTHS CERTIFIED AS DUE To OR CONNECTED WITH ALCOHOLISM (EXcLUDING 
CirRHOSIS OF THE LivER*) IN ENGLAND AND WALES 
IN EAcH oF THE YEARS 1913-1916 


(From the Registrar General’s returns) 
1913s 19147. 1915. 1916. 


WR ESA ie era FS creme gee scien emacs ela stele <ajaele 1,112 1,136 867 620 
LPOG) OCA C COSRAOE COC IEE H ngiG tee eee es 719 680 584 333 
ROtals secs seem e ioatle sas so, cists sleleteeis 1,831 1,816 1,451 953 
* The deaths certified as due to cirrhosis of the liver were as follows: 

1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 

RATES: f rctetn Sen ern sidlateve alee sfaceicioie ale = wiivic.e visieine 2,215 2,266 2,107 1,823 
veer MEG ick-c a parkie o iain not edn alan iete aiaia: chattels wa) bias 1,665 1,773 1,525 1,163 
TIGL ETES (HS Bei cca ee aS 3,880 4,039 3,632 2,986. 


TABLE VII—LIVERPOOL 


(A) Convictions ror DruNKENNESS, (B) Cases oF DeLintum TREMENS 
TREATED IN Poor LAw INFIRMARIES, AND (C) DEATHS FROM EXCESSIVE 
DRINKING, IN LIVERPOOL, IN THREE 12-MoNnTH PERIODS 


(Figures furnished by the Medical Officer of Health) 


Period of 12 (A) Convictions for (B) Casesof (C) Deaths from Ex- 
Months Ending Aug. 15. Drunkenness. Delirium Tremens. cessive Drinking. 
M. F. Total MM; OES Vtotal M. F. Total 

Lc, HOGS CS een ae 9,679 3,522 13,201 366 145 511 85 41 126 
2. C16 Si Ree eee 7,290 3,838 11,128 263 158 421 57 5-108 
Shy MICE eee eee 4,355 1,922 6,277 128\ 77 205 35 14 49 


In Appendix II of the Third Report, under the heading 
“Drinking among Women” is given a “Report of Special Inves- 
tigation in the Birmingham District” as follows: 


1. In June, 1916, a petition was sent to the Board, bearing 37,155 signatures 
of women and girls, requesting that an order be made whereby no girl in 
Birmingham and district under the age of 21 should be served with intoxi- 
cating liquor or allowed on licensed premises until three months after the 
declaration of peace. The grounds for this petition were the large number 


IN GREATER LONDON 


1909-1916 


dl 


i=) 
re 


SSS GW 


SSSSSS SSS WC 


3 38$S$GGG GFW 2 


©: Jue : 


ISSSSSSS SSS Svs 


3 


ESSSSSSSSASSSENSSSS 


SSSSSS SSS SS 


Ee eer 5 
° 
2 


SG WW 


S S 
S S S 
Ss Ss S 
al ) ~ 
= 


131 


ss 
A PopPpuULATION OF 


ovER 100,000 


1909-1916 


SS GG. LQG. 


S. GV! C.2.£W 


BSS SS. 5. £££, we. 88 


IWWWWMgg _F 


ae oe f| 
UN ANSI 


ESS GG. 8 


SSS CW Wy 


Q 


ESSSG GS 


, abel ee ayaa 
ITWW.Wr 


ESSS8NGSSNSSSS 


= SSS GS 


ESS. G8 GQ 


ieee 
EN SSNS 


EE ee ee 
IW LW 


S 3 
i) 


132 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


of girls that had, it was believed, ceased to be total abstainers since the war, 
alleged increase of drinking parties, and observations of public houses show- 
ing large numbers of women frequenting them. The petition was supported 
by the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Licensing Justices. ; 

2. At the meeting of July 18, 1916, the Board approved the report of the 
committee to which’ the petition had been referred in the first instance. The 
following is an extract from this report: “The statements bear closely 
upon the condition of girl workers in munition factories and it has been 
ascertained from the Director of the Welfare Department of the Ministry 
of Munitions that he would welcome investigation of this matter. The com- 
mittee recommend that the Board should undertake such investigation with 
a view to seeing whether, and how far, their powers could be used to remedy 
any evil which may be found.” 


8. The evidence received by the. committee from these various sources 
did not point to any recent increase of drunkenness, or indeed of excessive 
drinking. It was authoritatively and emphatically stated that the broken 
pledges of persons pledged to total abstinence had “very infrequently” led 
to intemperance. Some specific instances were produced of drunkenness 
among women, but these were usually among women who drank before the 
war and had now greater opportunity through increased incomes, and in some 
cases increased drinking was attributed to the absence of the controlling 
influence of the husband. 

9. It was generally agreed that the problem was one of large numbers 
of women taking alcoholic liquor to a moderate degree. It had therefore 
to be considered by the committee in close connection with the present con- 
ditions of the city of Birmingham as regards its increased female and its 
decreased male population. 


. . 


13. The returns: submitted by the police authorities in Birmingham in 
respect of convictions and arrests for drunkenness appear to indicate a 
steady and rather remarkable decline, and tours of inspection by police offi- 
cials have not revealed such increase of excess as has been alleged. The 
following tables show police figures of arrests: 

(a) Arrests of men and women for drunkenness in periods of 222 days 
before and after Board’s order (November 22, 1915), compared with same. 
periods in two preceding years: 


19th April to 21st November 22d November to Ist July 
Male. Female. Total. Male. Female. Total. 
IOUS SS accgsacnne 2,761 633 3,394  1913-14....... ... 2,900 624 3,524 
OEE Saab poout 2,394 672 3,066 1914-15.......... 1,218 409 1,627 
IQNE GS Gb ogeduecuse 1,504 437 1,941 1915-16... 22.305. 647 217 = 863 


N.B.—14 November, 1914. Brewers’ Association Order forbidding sale 
of intoxicating liquor to women before 11 a. M. 
25 March, 1915. Justices’ order restricting hours to 10 a. m. to 10 P. M. 


GREAT BRITAIN 133 


(b) Arrests of women for drunkenness in yearly periods, 1906-1915: 


mG 1907, 1908 1909. 1910» 1911. 1912", 1913 1914 391915 
SOS /23 632 686 756 846 1,033 1,030 928 667 


* 1911, boundary of city enlarged. 


(c) Arrests of women for drunkenness in six-monthly periods, January- 
June, 1914-16: 


Jantaryitomitunes O14 onnsncie hs wee tec sceitsi cise cate 6 511 
iJantary,etom) tne OU Stn acrcien.cneeel namiet wists ancl one's 351 
Januarys tojuney 1Ol6 sas asee cts aie o slewie> aiesctales tswcesiate 182 


(d) Return of soldiers’ wives who have come into hands of police through 
drunkenness: 
1914 1915 1916 
8 93 19 


[Of those shown in Table (d) the portion for January to June would 
probably be included in arrests of Table (c).] 


17. Much of the evidence before the committee seemed to show that such 
problem as exists in relation to drink among women is one that is concerned 
with future evils which may arise from present conditions rather than with 
existing evils. 

18. The women employed in Birmingham in factories and in other work 
are very numerous, and are increasing in number; the association with men 
in work, and the frequent adoption of some of the habits of men workers 
has led to an increase in the number of women who drink intoxicating liquor 
and frequent public houses. This occurs among women of all ages; and 
inspection of about 50 or 60 public houses at various times showed a good 
many women frequenting them, the number of women being, however, 
substantially less than that of men; they were mostly older women and also 
girls of apparently about 20 years and upward, but very few can have been 
below the age of 18; in almost all cases these women and girls were in the 
company of men. No drunkenness was seen, and no substantial evidence 
was submitted to the committee that there is an increase of women indulging 
in alcoholic liquors to excess. The representative deputation from the 
licensed trade informed the committee that in addition to the ordinary 
police supervision they employ their own detectives to supervise their trade, 
and that they have taken steps to discourage women from lingering on 
licensed premises. The trade also gave evidence indicating the action they 
had taken with a view to removing tendencies to excessive drinking among 
women. 

19. Some witnesses stated that it was their belief that immorality was 
on the increase and was traceable to alcoholic excess, but on these points 
the committee were not furnished with any evidence. 

20. Previous to taking evidence the committee reviewed the situation as 
affected by recent changes in Birmingham. First, there is the effect of the 
restrictions of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) particularly in 
respect of a reduction of hours for the sale of intoxicating liquor, which 


134 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


must inevitably lead to a greater or less degree of concentration of persons 
in public houses. Secondly, there has been a substantial reduction in the 
male population owing to the remarkable response of the men of Birmingham 
in answering the call to the colors. Thirdly, there has been an unprecedented 
influx of women workers. These three changes are likely to have exerted 
a profound effect upon the social life of the city and a relative increase, as 
well as an apparent increase, in the number of women attending public 
houses is unavoidable. Many of the witnesses who presented themselves 
to the committee had failed to appreciate the magnitude or effect of these 
changes. 

21. The evidence the committee have had shows that there are a large 
number of women who frequent public houses, but they have no evidence 
that any great number of these women are drinking to excess, or that muni- 
tion work is being materially delayed or interfered with on this account. 
The committee have no means of calculating the percentage of the female 
population who make use of the public houses, nor have they been able to 
arrive at any accurate figure with regard to the ages of those who do. The 
evidence was conclusive on the latter point, but from what the committee 
themselves saw they believe that the majority are over 21 years of age. 
Again, they have not found it possible to ascertain definitely whether the 
percentage of women using public houses is greater than before the war, but 
they think there is a strong presumption that the number is greater, not only 
actually but relatively to the population. They believe that this is due to 
various causes, but chiefly to the gradual alteration of public opinion with 
regard to greater freedom of manners and customs among women, and the 
increased wage now being earned by women and girls. They believe that 
the employment of women in the same industrial work as men has led to 
the gradual adoption by women of some habits and customs hitherto par- 
ticular to men, and that the prevailing opinion among young people of both 
sexes no longer acts as a restraint and does not condemn a young woman 
for having a glass of beer or stout in a public house with or without her 
men friends. They think that this tendency to greater freedom of manners 
is likely to continue. 

22. Further, they wish to record their deliberate opinion that public houses 
as constructed and conducted at present are most undesirable places of resort 
both morally and physically for young people of either sex. 

23. The witnesses were almost unanimous in desiring that some measure 
should be taken to prevent young women frequenting public houses, but in 
view of the fact that this habit does not appear at present to involve either 
excessive drinking on the one hand or interference with munition work on 
the other, the committee have no alternative but to advise the Board that, 
within the terms of their reference, there is no immediate call for restrictions 
in this regard. They wish, however, to add that among the remedies which 
have been suggested to them are two which they think it well briefly to 
mention: (a) The improvement of public houses in order to render them 
fit and appropriate places for women and young people; (b) An order 
prohibiting the sale of intoxicants in licensed premises to women under 21. 


GREAT BRITAIN JESS 


(a) The improvement of conditions in public houses involves many diffi- 
cult and controversial matters. If left to private effort it would probably 
be slight and of slow growth, If undertaken by the state or the munici- 
pality it would involve administrative questions of large dimensions which 
seem to the committee to lie outside the terms of their reference. 

(b) The proposal to issue an order prohibiting the sale of intoxicants 
in licensed premises to women under 21 was supported by almost all wit- 
nesses before the committee. Such an order is a measure which would, if 
necessary, be adopted at once. It might have the effect of increasing home 
drinking and it would not necessarily keep young women out of public 
houses, and might therefore fail to protect them from the possibility of 
demoralizing influence. It is open to the objection that it involves adminis- 
trative action for one sex only, and to justify such action a strong case 
of excessive drinking among that sex and at a certain age should be proved, 
which in this instance is not the case. Nor have the committee received any 
evidence indicating that such drinking as exists is interfering materially with 
the output of munitions. Many witnesses, however, although they recog- 
nized that there was little or no excessive drinking among women at the 
present time in Birmingham, were strongly in favor of such an order as a 
preventive measure, but the committee after careful consideration find them- 
selves unable to recommend a preventive measure for one city only and 
where excessive drinking has not been proved. Such a preventive measure 
applied generally may be desirable but is outside the terms of their reference. 

24. A modified form of this proposition to include boys and girls under 
18 was suggested to the committee. For similar reasons to those above 
stated the committee are unable to recommend such a course of action. 

25. Finally, the committee wish it to be understood that they recognize 
that a problem in respect of the relation between women and public houses 
does exist in considerable degree in Birmingham. Nor does it appear to be 
a passing phase only. But the solution of this problem seems to lie outside 
the reference to the committee. 

(Signed) Grorce Newman, Chairman, 
ELLEN F. PINSENT, 
ELIzABETH MacapAm, 
Hiwpa MARTINDALE. 
G. C. Brooxe, Secretary. 
10th August, 1916. 


CHAPTER VI 


Why America Tends toward Prohibition 
Rather than Control 


The situation with respect to alcoholic drinks at the beginning 
of the war is somewhat difficult to summarize. Statistics of 
production and consumption are available and fairly reliable, 
but the question of drunkenness or national inefficiency is a 
very elusive one. The moral side of the problem has been pre- 
sented in season and out of season by temperance reformers for 
several generations. Since we entered the war, however, the 
economic side of the question has been uppermost. Here, as 
in other countries, the argument for the repression of drink 
during the war has been based mainly on two forms of waste: 
first, the loss of efficiency through drunkenness, and second, the 
waste of food materials in the manufacture of potable alcohol. 

Liquor control in this country, long before the war, came to 
mean prohibition, local, statewide or national. It was long ago 
found that with our liberal habits in the spending of money, 
high license and excise taxes had practically no effect on the 
amount of alcohol consumed. ‘These devices increased the cost 
of drink to the drinker, but he has generally found the money 
to pay the price. Some unsatisfactory experiments have been 
tried with the dispensary system, but they have not inspired 
much public interest. It was naively argued that men drank, 
not so much because they wanted alcohol as because it was 
forced upon them by men who made a profit from its sale. This 
argument overlooked the fact that it is not easy to make a profit 
trying to sell something that is not wanted. There is no object- 
tion per se to pushing the sale of anything which it is desirable 
that people should buy. In fact, it may be highly advantageous 
to have an object of real utility placed before the people in the 

139 


140 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


most alluring forms. Were this not so, we could scarcely 
justify the preaching of Christianity, or the staging of a cam- 
paign for the sale of liberty bonds. The real objection to push- 
ing the sale of alcohol must be based either upon the proposition 
that people ought not to drink it at all, or that they ought not to 
drink it except in moderation. Those who accept the proposition 
that people ought not to drink it at all, and reason logically there- 
from, are likely to say that if people ought not to drink it, it ought 
not to be sold at all, either at a profit or without a profit. Those 
who take this position may admit that the monopolizing of the sale 
of liquor by the State might serve as a temporary makeshift 
until a more thorough method could be adopted, but beyond that 
they would not admit the validity of the argument for the dis- 
pensary system. , 

To one who takes this uncompromising attitude toward drink, 
an equally uncompromising attitude toward the manufacture and 
sale of drink is a logical necessity. He would see no better 
reason why the State should try to eliminate the evils by merely 
removing the profit making motive in the case of drink than in 
the case of sexual immorality. A State conducted brothel 
would be no more illogical to him than a State conducted saloon. 
As a matter of fact, publicly owned and conducted brothels have 
been about as common in the past as publicly owned and con- 
ducted saloons are today. 


Perhaps the most incredible case to illustrate the power of the mores to 
extend toleration and sanction to an evil thing remains to be mentioned—the 
lupanars which were supported by the medieval cities. Atheneus says that 
Solon caused female slaves to be bought by the city and exposed in order to 
save other women from assaults on their virtue. In later times prostitution 
was accepted as inevitable, but it was not organized by the city. Salvianus 

represents the brothels as tolerated by the Roman law in order to 
prevent adultery. Lupanars continued to exist from Roman times until the 
Middle Ages. Those in southern Europe were recruited from the female 
pilgrims from the north who set out for Rome or Palestine, and whose means 
failed them. It is another social phenomenon due to poverty and to a specious 
argument of protection to women in a good position. This argument came 
down by tradition with the institution. The city council of Nuremberg stated, 
as a reason for establishing a lupanar, that the church allowed harlots in 
order to prevent greater evils. . . . Such houses were maintained without 


— se 


THE UNITED STATES ‘141 


secrecy or shame. Queen Joanna of Naples made ordinances for a lupanar 
at Avignon, in 1347, when it was the papal residence. Generally the house 
was rented to a “host” under stipulations as to the food, dress, and treatment 
of the inmates, and regulations as to order, gambling, etc. The inmates, like 
the public executioners, were required to wear a distinctive dress. Frequent- 
ers did not need to practise secrecy. The houses were free to persons of 
rank, and were especially prepared by the city when it had to entertain great 
persons. Women who were natives of the city were not admitted. This is 
the only feature which is not entirely cynical and shameless. In 1501 a rich 
citizen of Frankfurt-am-Main bequeathed to the city a sum of money with 
which to build a large house into which all the great number of harlots could 
be collected, for the number increased greatly. They appeared at all great 
concourses of men, and were sent out to the Hansa stations. In fact, the 
people of the time accepted certain social phenomena as “natural” and inevi- 
table, and they made their arrangements accordingly, uninterfered with by 
“moral sense.” . ; 

All the authorities agree that the thing which put an end to the city 
lupanars was syphilis. It was not due to any moral or religious revolt, although 
there had been individuals who had criticized the institution of harlots, and 
some pious persons had founded convents, in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries, for repentant harlots. Protestants and Catholics tried, to some 
extent, to throw the blame of the lupanars on each other. Luther urged the 
abolition of them in 1520. They reached their greatest development in the 
fifteenth century.t 


With a few names changed, this would sound strangely like 
an argument for the dispensary system to one who regards the 
drinking of alcohol as wrong in itself. 

On the other hand, those who do not regard drinking as in 
itself undesirable, but object only to excessive drinking or 
drunkenness, have a better argument for the dispensary system. 
They may, with justice, contend that the tendency of those who 
sell anything for a profit is to push the sale, and use the arts of 
the salesman and the advertiser to persuade people to buy more 
than they otherwise would. 

In some cases, to be sure, it.is desirable that the sale of an 
article should be pushed and that many individuals should be 
persuaded to buy more than they would buy without the persua- 
sion of the expert salesman and advertiser. In such cases, com- 
petitive selling works to the advantage of the buyer as well as 


1From Folkways by William G. Sumner, Ginn & Company, Boston, 1907, 
Sections 582 and 583, pages 529-531. See also pages 256, 370 and 533-559. 


142 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


the seller. But in the case of intoxicating liquor, even though 
one believes that a small quantity is good for the buyer, no 
one will deny that there are many who buy and consume too 
much. Competitive selling must be reckoned as one of the 
factors which increase the sales of intoxicating beverages, and 
therefore it must be reckoned as one of the factors in the pro- 
duction of drunkenness. To that extent, these facts would 
argue in favor of some method of dispensing liquors which 
would eliminate the profit making motive or any other motive 
which would spur manufacturers and dealers to great efficiency 
in their work. 

On the other hand, it may be argued that if the consumption 
of moderate quantities of alcoholic liquor is beneficial, then it 
would be a good thing if abstainers could be persuaded to drink 
moderate quantities. Some motive ought therefore to be found 
which would push the business of selling liquor to those who 
drink too little. Missionary zeal could scarcely be depended 
upon to put the necessary energy into the business. Probably 
nothing could do this so effectively, that is, probably nothing 
would so stimulate the needed efficiency as the desire to prosper 
in the business of manufacturing and selling drink. This argues 
against the dispensary system and in favor of competitive selling. 

In attempting to balance the two arguments, we need to con- - 
sider whether the good which would come to the nondrinkers 
by inducing them to drink moderate quantities would more than 
balance the harm done to certain moderate drinkers by inducing 
them to drink immoderate quantities. Stated otherwise the 
question becomes, do the nondrinkers suffer more harm from 
drinking too little than the hard drinkers suffer from drinking 
too much? If so, the sale of drink to the nondrinkers ought to 
be pushed, even though, by so doing, certain moderate drinkers 
are transformed into immoderate drinkers. If not, the sale 
ought to be restricted, or at least, the business of selling ought not 
to become too efficient, lest the harm done by making moderate 
drinkers into drunkards should be greater than that done by 
failing to sell to teetotalers as much as they need. 


THE UNITED STATES 143 


The argument for the dispensary system is rather obviously 
based upon the following assumptions: 

1. Moderate drinking is either harmless or beneficial. 

2. Immoderate drinking is harmful. 

3. Large numbers of men drink so immoderately as to do 
harm to themselves and to society. 

4. The harm which results from the hard drinking of those 
who drink to excess is greater than that which results from the 
abstemiousness of those who abstain or drink very little. 

The salient parts of this argument are the observed fact that 
much drinking is carried to such excess as to make it harmful, 
and the assumption that this harm is not compensated by any 
benefit which might come to abstainers if they could be induced 
by expert salesmanship or clever advertising to become moderate 
drinkers. There is thus believed to be a net loss to society 
through the high pressure selling of alcoholic drinks as that 
business is now carried on. This argument has proved fairly 
convincing to all the principal warring countries of Europe 
since the war began. The harmfulness of drunkenness has been 
accentuated in a time when any loss in the efficiency of its man 
power may result in disaster to the nation. No evidence has 
been presented to show any accentuated loss through too much 
sobriety. In European countries these considerations have led 
to measures for controlling the drink trade, the purpose being 
mainly to reduce the amount of excessive drinking and of 
drunkenness on the one hand, and to conserve a certain amount 
of food on the other. In the United States and Canada, how- 
ever, the tendency has been to give a new impetus to the pro- 
hibition movement which has already been spreading very 
rapidly. 

The difference in the attitude of the people toward drink on 
the two sides of the Atlantic is somewhat significant. The 
tendency in the old world is to look upon alcohol as either harm- 
less or beneficial when taken in small quantities and to condemn 
only the excessive use of it. The tendency of the majority on 
this side of the Atlantic is to look upon alcohol with a kind of 


144 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


abhorrence. This abhorrence is apparently not based upon any 
belief that even the minutest quantities of alcohol are necessarily 
harmful, and that even the most moderate drinker is therefore 
doing himself irremediable harm. It is rather based upon the 
observation that, in a large way, alcohol does great social harm. 
There is therefore little inclination to inquire precisely how 
much alcohol can be taken without harm to the taker. The 
observed fact seems to be that comparatively few people are 
capable of making that calculation, or, having made it, to stop 
at the right point. In fact, it seems to be observed that as a 
drinker approaches that point, he gradually loses his power of 
making nice, critical judgments, and is very likely to go beyond 
the proper limit. Having once passed that limit, he becomes 
further incapacitated for self-restraint, etc. 

This presents an interesting problem in the psychology of 
social control. Can drunkenness, which every reasonable person 
desires to see reduced, be more effectively controlled by recog- 
nizing the propriety of moderate drinking while discountenanc- 
ing heavy drinking and punishing drunkenness, or by discounte- 
nancing all drinking whatsoever and penalizing all manufactur- 
ing and selling of intoxicants? Something may be said on both 
sides, but the weight of public opinion in North America is 
growing more and more in favor of the latter policy. 

In the actual practice of social control, both methods are and 
always have been used toward various practices which result in 
social harm. Nothing is wrong, of course, except that which 
can be shown to do positive injury to society or the nation. In 
some cases, social condemnation is limited to those excesses 
which can be shown to be socially harmful; in others, social 
condemnation is directed against every act which tends, in the 
large, to produce social harm, even though in many individual 
cases the individual act could not possibly be shown to have 
resulted in any direct harm. If the effect of the individual act 
is to break down the morale of the community, to make the 
people tolerant of acts which tend to be carried to excess and 
which, if carried to excess, result in harm, then the community 


THE UNITED STATES 145 


must, for its own protection, assume an austere and intolerant 
attitude. 

The case of sexual immorality will serve as an illustration. 
It would in many cases be difficult or impossible to prove that 
any direct social harm had resulted. But there are two large 
and outstanding facts which must always be borne in mind. 
First, there is a powerful instinct tending to drive people to 
excess in this direction. Second, when carried to excess, great 
social harm results. In the interest of social control it is neces- 
sary that this powerful instinct be held in check by an equally 
powerful motive. That motive is the fear of social condemna- 
tion. If society becomes tolerant, and social condemnation 
grows weak, there will be no motive sufficient to counteract the 
power of the sexual instinct. That is the only sound reason 
why we never discuss the distinction between a moderate and 
an excessive amount of sexual promiscuity, nor try to decide at 
what point it becomes excessive. We are all taught, on the con- 
trary, to view with abhorrence any departure whatever from 
the strictest monogamy. Needless to say, this emotional abhor- 
rence is not a rational process, though there is a good reason 
for its existence. If we did not cultivate this emotional abhor- 
rence, but tried instead to view every case in a coldly rational 
manner, there is not much doubt that society’s control over the 
situation would be much less effective than it is today. There 
is no reasoning with an appetite. It can only be controlled by 
some kind of an emotional abhorrence. 

The appetite for alcohol is by no means so powerful, so uni- 
versal or so natural as that for sexual gratification, therefore 
there is not a complete analogy between the drink question and 
the sex question. There is, however, a partial analogy. One 
may repeat with respect to drink the two propositions upon 
which the policy of sex control is based. First, there is a power- 
ful appetite which, if not counteracted, leads vast numbers of 
people to drink to excess. Second, when men drink to excess, 
great social harm results. 

The first of these propositions, while indisputable, can not be 


146 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


repeated with the same emphasis as would be justified in the 
case of the sexual instinct, for the reasons stated above. The 
second proposition, however, can be made quite as emphatic in 
the case of drink as in the case of sex. Excessive drinking is 
quite as harmful to society as excessive sexual indulgence, though 
the motive prompting to excess is less powerful as well as less 
universal in the case of drink. There is not, therefore, so strong 
a reason in the interest of social control for attaching moral 
turpitude to moderate drinking as there is to moderate promis- 
cuity. 

There is, however, a rather strong reason. ‘This may be 
brought out by another comparison. Excessive indulgence in 
laughing gas would, if it were generally practised, probably be as 
harmful socially as excessive indulgence in alcohol, or as exces- 
sive promiscuity. If there were a powerful tendency leading vast 
numbers of people to this kind of excess, there would be need 
of a powerful engine of social control. It is not too much to 
expect that a kind of emotional abhorrence would develop toward 
any indulgence whatever in laughing gas. The more powerful 
the tendency toward excess, the more powerful, uncompromis- 
ing, and intolerant the opposing tendency would have to be if 
society would save itself from destruction. If there were only 
a mild tendency toward excessive use of laughing gas, society 
would probably not concern itself very much about it. It would 
not be necessary that it should. 

The question as to whether our system of social control over 
drunkenness should take the extreme form of regarding all 
drinking with moral abhorrence, or the conservative form of 
looking upon it with indulgence except when and where it be- 
came noticeably harmful, must depend, therefore, upon the 
strength of the tendency toward excess. 

The observed fact seems to be that the tendency toward exces- 
sive drinking is much stronger in America than in Europe. 
Whether this is because of the more intense nature of Americans, 
due to their more stimulating climate, or because of the inferior 
quality of the liquor, or becausé of the larger incomes of the 


THE UNITED STATES 147 


Americans which enable them to buy stronger liquors or mild 
liquors in larger quantities, or because of all these factors com- 
bined, may be open to doubt. But there can be no doubt that 
this tendency toward excessive drinking has tended to produce 
its own antidote in the form of a positive and uncompromising 
hostility toward drink in all its forms. 

This attitude has been particularly strong among those classes 
which always must dominate the social and political life of any 
progressive country. An aristocratic class is always and of 
necessity a decaying class unless invigorated by new blood from 
below. This new blood from below is likely to carry its own 
ideals with it. Therefore a purely aristocratic class can gener- 
ally be ignored as a maker of permanent ideals. Proletarians 
who drink heavily are likely always to remain proletarians or 
to sink into the class of dependents. In a really progressive and 
democratic country the great middle class which increases in 
numbers, wealth and education is pretty certain to dominate 
the politics and the social life of the country. This class grows 
partly by its own power to prosper and to multiply and partly 
because of recruits from below due to the prosperity and growth 
in numbers of the more industrious, intelligent, sober and pro- 
gressive of the wage workers. 

In a country where the people show such tendencies to excess 
as in America, the people tend in the long run to divide them- 
selves into two main groups—the nondrinkers and the hard 
drinkers. The moderate drinkers form a decreasing group. 
The hard drinkers can, in the long run, be ignored as makers 
of public opinion. If wealthy, they soon degenerate. Ii poor, 
they remain poor and tend to grow poorer. Those who rise in 
the scale of prosperity and education are those who are most 
securely fortified against destructive vices of all kinds. The 
most secure defense against a powerful and destructive appetite 
or passion is an emotional abhorrence of it. They who have 
developed this emotional abhorrence of drink tend in the long 
run to be more sober than they who try to reason about it coldly, 
just as surely as they who develop an emotional abhorrence of 


148 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


unchastity tend, in the long run, to be more chaste than they who 
reason about it in a purely cold blooded manner. 

The uncompromising attitude toward drink is reflected in the 
various prohibitory laws. These are merely attempts to put into 
statutory form the emotional abhorrence felt by a class which 
is steadily growing in power and influence. Even before the 
war had given a new impetus to the prohibition movement, it had 
become by far the most democratic and progressive movement in 
American political and social life. No other reform had shown 
such growth in the number of its supporters or spread so rapidly. 
Moreover, it had spread, in the main, without the avowed sup- 
port of a powerful political party, and what is more important, 
it had spread almost entirely through the efforts of those who 
had nothing to gain from its success or to lose from its failure. 
To fail to grasp the significance of this large fact is to fail to 
understand even the first principles of the prohibition movement. 

Seventy-five years of temperance agitation in this country 
have tended to produce that emotional abhorrence of alcohol 
which is now beginning to bear fruit in prohibitory laws. The 
temperance movement here has never been a scientific movement 
in a ‘narrow and technical sense. Neither has the warfare 
against any vice. It can not be too often pointed out that there 
may be an excellent scientific reason for the existence of an 
emotion, though the emotion itself is not a scientific attitude. 
Love and patriotism are not scientific attitudes, though there are 
the best of scientific reasons for their existence. An emotional 
abhorrence of something which does great social injury is no 
more scientific than love or patriotism, but it has just as good 
scientific reasons for its existence as they have. 

Rightly or wrongly, the chief efforts of temperance reformers 
in this country, whose methods have always resembled those of 
the religious evangelists, have been to create a widespread, emo- 
tional abhorrence of alcohol in all its forms. Prohibition is the 
logical outcome of the state of mind created by this long period 
of strenuous warfare against the evils of drunkenness. In this 
respect the American idea of temperance reform is seen to be 


THE UNITED STATES 149 


in harmony with, if not a part of, evangelical Christianity. So 
far as its attitude toward moral problems is concerned Christian- 
ity is nothing if not an emotional interest in that which is 
deemed to be good and an emotional hostility toward that which 
is deemed to be bad. To fail to understand that is to fail to 
understand not only temperance reform in America, but Christi- 
anity itself as it has developed in the United States and Canada 
where, more than anywhere else, it has become an agency for 
the control of ethical conduct. 

Much has been written to show how difficult it is to enforce 
prohibitory laws. If one sets about it, one can find numerous 
instances of violation. But prohibitory laws do not suffer by 
comparison with any other laws for the suppression of vice or 
crime. There is no prohibition State in which the prohibitory 
law is not better enforced than laws against prostitution in the 
best of the nonprohibition States. : 

To argue that prohibitory laws can not be absolutely enforced 
is to show a complete inability to grasp the fundamentals of the 
problem. If a prohibitory law were not very difficult to enforce 
there would not be the slightest reason for having a prohibitory 
law. If it were not difficult to enforce a law against drink, it 
would argue that there was no very strong desire to drink 
liquor. If there were no very strong desire to drink liquor, it 
would not be worth while having a law to prevent drinking, 
however harmful it might be to those who saw fit to drink. 

For example, it is doubtless as harmful to take laughing gas 
in excess as alcohol in excess. The same may be said of many 
other substances. But if no one cares to take it to excess, it 
would be rather silly to have a law to prohibit it. At the same 
time, if such a law were enacted, it would be easily enforced be- 
cause no one would have any motive for breaking it. 

Another illustration, at the opposite extreme, is found in the 
case of prostitution. Here there is a powerful motive leading 
people to break the law. That is what makes the law so diff- 
cult to enforce. But, at the same time, that powerful motive 
makes it absolutely essential that there should be something to 


150 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


counteract it and hold it in control, otherwise it would drive 
men to harmful excesses. 

Wherever you have two conditions, which will be named 
shortly, you will have: first, the necessity for legal control; 
second, great difficulty in effecting that control. These condi- 
tions are: first, a powerful motive leading to excess; second, 
harmful results following that excess. In the case of prostitu- 
tion we have both these conditions. In the case of laughing gas 
we have only one. Name any case whatsoever in which only 
one of these conditions exists, and you have named a case which 
calls for no legal control or repression. If only the second con- 
dition exists, legal control is easy but unnecessary. Name any 
case whatsoever in which both these conditions exist and you 
have named a case which calls for legal control and repression, 
and in which that legal control and repression will be very diffi- 
cult to enforce. In fact, complete enforcement will be absolutely 
impossible. 

The only question, therefore, is, Does the drinking of alcohol 
form a case in which both conditions exist, or is it a case in 
which only one exists? That is to say, is it a case in which 
there is a powerful and widespread desire which leads to excess, 
and is that excess harmful, or is it a case in which there is no 
such powerful and widespread desire, or, if it exists, is it harm- 
less? If it is a case of the former class, the powerful and wide- 
spread desire will lead large numbers to drink to excess, and 
the results of that excess will do great social harm. If it is a 
case where there is no particular desire which leads any con- 
siderable number to excess, even though such excess were theo- 
retically harmful, there would be no great harm done by leaving 
men to themselves; or if there were a powerful and widespread 
desire leading to excess, but such excesses did no particular 
harm, again there would be no particular reason for legal con- 
trol or repression. 

It will scarcely be denied by any reasonable person that the 
drink question comes under the first class of cases. It unques- 
tionably forms a case where there is a powerful and widespread 


THE UNITED STATES 151i 


desire which leads large numbers to excess, and the results of that 
excess are exceedingly harmful. If there is any one who doubts 
either of these statements, he is welcome to his views. Ink is 
too precious to waste upon him. 

Every one of the warring countries has been forced to recog- 
nize both facts and to undertake some kind of legal control or 
repression as a measure of war efficiency. The results of in- 
efficiency are probably as truly present in time of peace as in time 
of war, but they are not so acutely felt, or likely to produce 
disaster in such spectacular forms. 

For at least forty years before this war, the tendency in 
America had been toward prohibition rather than control as 
a method of solving the liquor problem. What is more import- 
ant for our present purpose is the fact that, having that ex- 
perience behind us, it was inevitable that our policy toward 
drink in war time should likewise be one of prohibition rather 
than of control. 


CHAPTER VII 
The Repression of Drunkenness 


The arguments used in support of war time prohibition in 
this country were identical with those used in England in favor 
of liquor control. They are, first, the inefficiency which results 
from drunkenness on the part of those upon whom great re- 
sponsibility rests, and second, the waste of food materials in- 
volved in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages. So far as 
the evil effects of drunkenness upon soldiers and sailors were 
concerned, there was not much room for popular discussion, 
nor much need of it. The higher administrative officials acted 
promptly, issuing orders forbidding the selling or giving of 
liquors to men in uniform. Most of the public discussion and 
popular agitation were directed against the waste of food 
materials. . 

Congress promptly passed a rather sweeping prohibition of 
the keeping or the sale of liquor by private agencies in any mili- 
tary camp and specifically forbade the sale of intoxicating liquor, 
including beer, ale and wine, to any officer or soldier in uniform. 
This prohibition was embodied as Section 12 of the act approved 
May 18, 1917, commonly called the Selective Draft Act, but 
officially entitled “An Act to Authorize the President to Increase 
Temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States.” 

Section 12 reads as follows: 

That the President of the United States, as commander in chief of the 
army, is authorized to make such regulations governing the prohibition of 
alcoholic liquors in or near military camps and to the officers and enlisted 
men of the army as he may from time to time deem necessary or advisable: 
Provided, That no person, corporation, partnership, or association shall sell, 
supply, or have in his or its possession, any intoxicating or spirituous liquors 


at any military station, cantonment, camp, fort, post, officers’ or enlisted 
men’s club, which is being used at the time for military purposes under this 


152 


THE UNITED STATES 153 


act, but the Secretary of War may make regulations permitting the sale and 
use of intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes. It shall be unlawful to 
sell any intoxicating liquor, including beer, ale, or wine, to any officer or 
member of the military forces while in uniform, except as herein provided. 
Any person, corporation, partnership, or association violating the provisions 
of this section of the regulations made thereunder shall, unless otherwise 
punishable under the Articles of War, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
and be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not 
more than twelve months, or both.t 


In the above act it was provided that the President, as com- 
mander in chief of the army, might make such regulations as 
he saw fit for the prohibition of alcoholic liquors in or near 
military camps. On July 25 the following regulation, among 
others, was issued by the President and the Secretary of War 
under authority of the above act: 


No person, whether acting individually or as an officer, member, agent, 
representative, or employe of an individual, shall, in or within five miles 
of any military camp, except as hereinafter provided, sell or barter directly 
or indirectly, either alone or with any other article, any alcoholic liquor, 
including beer, ale, or wine, to any person, or give or serve any such alcoholic 
liquor to any person, except that this prohibition against serving or giving 
alcoholic liquor shall not apply to the serving of wines or liquors in a private 
home to members of the family or to bona fide guests therein other than 
officers or members of the military forces; and no person, whether acting 
individually or as a member, officer, agent, representative, or employe of 
any corporation, partnership, or association, or as an agent, representative, 
or an employe of an individual, shall send, ship, transmit, or transport in 
any manner, or cause to be shipped, transmitted, or transported in any 
manner, any alcoholic liquor, including beer, ale, or wine, to any place 
within five miles of any military camp, except for use in his home, as herein- 
before authorized; Provided, That where the existing limits of an incor- 
porated city or town are within five miles of a military camp, the prohibition 
upon the sale, barter, gift, service, sending, shipment, transmission, or trans- 
portation of alcoholic liquors imposed by this regulation shall not apply to 
any part of the incorporated city or town distant more than one-half mile 
from said camp.? 


On September 17, 1917, the President issued an executive 
order extending the above regulations to navy yards, naval sta- 


1From Statutes of the United States of America, passed at the First 
Session of the Sixty-fifth Congress, 1917, page 82. 
2 From Bulletin No. 45, War Department. 


154. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


tions, naval or marine camps or barracks where military forces 
are under training, as follows: 


It is hereby directed that the term “military camps” employed in the regu- 
lations established by the President and published in Paragraph 1, Section 
III, Bulletin No. 45, War Department, dated July 23, 1917, shall be con- 
strued to refer, in addition to the cantonments and camps specified in Bulle- 
tin No. 48, War Department, dated August 22, 1917, to any navy yard, naval 
station, naval or marine camp or barracks, and any other establishment under 
the jurisdiction of the Navy Department, where military forces are under 
training. Wooprow WILSON. 


Even before the war, Secretary Daniels had forbidden the 
use of alcoholic drinks on vessels of the United States Navy. 
He was prompt in urging laws for the protection of navy yards, 
naval stations and other places under the jurisdiction of the 
Navy Department. In the Official Bulletin for May 22, 1917, 
the following statement was given out: | 


The Secretary of the Navy, having noted those sections in the recent law 
to provide for the temporary increase in the military establishment that relate 
to the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of the military 
forces while in uniform, has decided that similar provisions for the welfare 
of the naval personnel would be desirable. Since April 6th last there have 
been about 40,000 new enlistments in the navy, mostly young men who are 
at an age when it is most important that they be trained and cared for under 
conditions that will not conduce to the formation of bad habits, especially 
those arising out of the use of intoxicating liquor. 

Believing, therefore, that the well being of these numerous recruits, as 
well as that of the older men, would be promoted and that legislation similar 
to that for the army would be most salutary and beneficial for the efficiency 
of the navy generally, the Secretary of the Navy has addressed a letter to 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of which copies were furnished 
the Naval Affairs Committees of the House and Senate, urging favorable 
consideration of this question and submitting a draft of proposed legislation, 
as follows: 


Draft of Proposed Law 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United 
States, as commander in chief of the navy, be, and he is hereby, authorized 
to make such regulations governing the prohibition of alcoholic liquors in 
or near every place under the jurisdiction and control of the Navy Depart- 
ment and to the officers and enlisted men of the navy and marine corps and 
other forces of the United States serving with the navy or under the juris- 
diction and control of the Navy Department, as he may from time to time 


THE UNITED STATES 155 


deem necessary or advisable: Provided, that no person, corporation, part- 
nership, or association shall sell, supply, or have in his or its possession any 
intoxicating or spirituous liquors, at any navy yard, naval station, academy, 
war college, ammunition, or other depot, hospital, laboratory, experiment 
station, magazine, training station, or camp, officers’ or enlisted men’s club, 
aeronautic station, torpedo station, submarine, or other base, coal or other 
fuel plant, radio station, rifle range, marine barracks, post, depot, camp, or 
cantonment, which is being used at the time for naval purposes, but the 
Secretary of the Navy may make regulations permitting the sale, purchase, 
use, and possession of intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes. It shall 
be unlawful to sell, furnish, or give away any intoxicating liquor, including 
beer, ale, or wine, to any officer or member of the naval forces while in 
uniform, except as may be authorized by regulations duly made as herein 
provided. Any person, corporation, partnership, or association violating the 
provisions of this section, or the regulations made thereunder, shall, unless 
otherwise punishable under the Articles for the Government of the Navy, 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine of not more 
than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than twelve months, or both. 


On June 9, 1917, the Official Bulletin published the following: 


The Navy Department authorizes the following: 

Secretary Daniels has sent the following telegram to all naval stations: 

The Department requested opinion Attorney General as to whether Sec- 
tion 12, Selective Draft Act, approved May 18,°1917, containing prohibition 
provisions, applies to naval forces. Attorney General replied, in part, as fol- 
lows: “This Department has administratively construed the provision in ques- 
tion as covering the entire military establishment of the United States, includ- 
ing the navy and marine corps.’ Please give this matter widest publicity. 

(Followed by prohibition provisions. See above, page 152.) 


The matter was settled, however, by a special act of Con- 
gress, approved October 6, 1917, extending the provisions of Sec- 
tion 12 of the Selective Draft Act, to the navy as well as to the 
army. This act is entitled, “An Act to Promote the Efficiency 
of the United States Navy,” and reads as follows: ? 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America, in Congress assembled, That in construing the provisions 
of Sections 12 and 13 of the Selective Draft Act, approved May 18, 1917, 
the word “army” shall extend to and include “navy”; the word “military” 
shall include “naval”; “Articles of War” shall include “Articles for the Gov- 
ernment of the Navy”; the words “military station, cantonment, camp, fort, 
post, officers’ or enlisted men’s club,” in Section 12, and “camp, station, fort, 


1See Statutes of the U. S. A., Sixty-fifth Congress, page 393. 


156 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


post, cantonment, training or mobilization place,” in Section 13, shall include 
such places under naval jurisdiction as the President may prescribe, and 
the powers therein conferred upon the Secretary of War with regard to the 
military service are hereby conferred upon the Secretary of the Navy with 
regard to the naval service. 


The Secretary of the Navy had meanwhile been active in 
controlling the situation so far as his authority would permit 
him to go, and also in urging upon the State authorities in those 
States where navy yards and naval stations were located the 
necessity of cleaning up the neighborhoods surrounding such 
stations. The Official Bulletin for June 20 and July 14, 1917, 
contains the following statements: 


Secretary of the Navy Daniels has authorized the following statement : 

“Having received numerous complaints of immoral conditions at the city 
of Newport, R. I., from citizens of Newport and from the parents of many 
of the young men now gathered there in the great Naval Training Station 
and the encampment of the Naval Reserve, I deemed it proper to call the 
matter to the attention of the Governor of Rhode Island. 

“In reply the Governor returned to this Department a report from the 
Mayor of Newport, representing that there was no unusual degree of immor- 
ality in that city, denying the truth and justice of the complaints, and gen- 
erally minimizing the situation. Thereupon this Department, through its 
own agents and with the assistance of the Department of Justice, instituted 
an investigation at first hand. As a result of that investigation, I have just 
sent to the Governor of Rhode Island a list in detail of some of the most 
notorious houses of prostitution and open gambling houses in Newport, 
also calling his attention to the extent and methods of illegal sale of liquor 
to sailors and naval reserve recruits, and informing him that the Department 
is ready to furnish him with further specific evidence if the State’s own 
officers do not produce it.” [June 20, 1917.] 


Secretary Daniels has made the following statement: 

“T have written the Governor of Pennsylvania a letter concerning condi- 
tions in Philadelphia near the navy yard, similar to the one I wrote the 
Governor of Rhode Island some time ago in regard to Newport. I have 
sent him a list of quite a number of places which are a menace to the young 
men in the navy and marine corps, giving him the names of saloons, gambling 
houses, and houses of ill-fame, giving streets and numbers. I have asked 
him to use his authority to have these places closed and to improve condi- 
tions there. 

“Experts have made an investigation at Philadelphia, and I have sent 
their report to the Governor.” 

Asked whether he would take the same action at Philadelphia that he did 
at Newport, where guards were stationed in front of the houses, the Sec- 


THE UNITED STATES 157 


retary said he would not decide what action he would take until after he 
had heard from Governor Brumbaugh and learned what the local authorities 
would do, as he believed the State authorities would cooperate and close the 
places which are causing complaint. 

“We have been investigating conditions surrounding all stations where 
we have recruits,” Secretary Daniels said. “I have not written to any gov- 
ernor or any of the local authorities until I have had investigations made 
and could send them the facts in detail.” 

Asked who were conducting these investigations, he said that in some 
instances they were made by agents of the Department of Justice, in others 
by committees of the State Councils of Defense, by local committees, or by 
naval agencies. [July 14, 1917.] 


Acting on the authority given by the Selective Draft Act as 
amended, the Secretary of the Navy established dry zones in 
the following order: 


1. Section 12 of the Selective Draft Act, approved May 18, 1917 (see 
above, page 152). 

2. This section is amended by the act approved October 6, 1917 (see 
above, page 155). 

3. Under the authority of Section 12 above, as amended, the following 
regulations are established by the President, to continue during the present 
emergency : 

(1) There is hereby established a zone five miles wide, circumjacent to 
the boundaries of every place under naval jurisdiction specified below. Alco- 
holic liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, either alone or with any other 
article, shall not, directly or indirectly, be sold, bartered, given, served, or 
knowingly delivered by one person to another within any such zone, or sent, 
shipped, transmitted, carried, or transported to any place within any such 
zone; Provided, That this regulation shall not apply to the giving or serving 
of such liquor in a private home to members of the family or bona fide 
guests, other than officers or members of the naval forces; Provided also, 
That this regulation shall not apply to the sale or gift of such liquor by reg- 
istered pharmacists to licensed physicians or medical officers of the United 
States for medical purposes, or to the administering of such liquor by or 
under the direction of such physicians or medical officers of the United 
States for medical purposes, or to the sending, shipping, transmitting, carry- 
ing, or transporting of such liquor to registered pharmacists, licensed physi- 
cians, or medical officers of the United States for use as aforesaid. 

(2) Until otherwise ordered the places under naval jurisdiction referred 
to above are specified as follows: 

Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 

Naval Training Station, Newport, R. I. 

Naval Training Station, Norfolk, Va. 

Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, III. 

Naval Training Station, Naval Operating Base, Hampton, Roads, Va 


158 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Training Camp, Navy Yard, Mare Island, Cal. 

Marine Barracks, Paris Island, S. C. 

Marine Barracks, Quantico, Va. 

(3) Outside of said zones, alcoholic liquor, including beer, ale, and wine, 
either alone or with any other article, shall not directly or indirectly, be 
sold, bartered, given, served, or knowingly delivered to any officer or member 
of the naval forces, except when administered for medical purposes by or 
under the direction of a regularly licensed physician or medical officer of 
the United States; Provided, That this regulation shall not apply to the 
giving or serving of such liquor in a private home to members of the family 
or bona fide guests. 

(4) Nothing contained in these regulations shall be construed to prohibit 
or restrict the procuring or use of wine by any religious congregation or 
church for sacramental purposes in the usual religious exercises of its 
denomination. 

(5) The words “station, cantonment, camp, fort, post, officers’ or en- 
listed men’s club” as used in the proviso to Section 12, above quoted, shall 
include all places under naval jurisdiction. The use of intoxicating liquor 
in such places, by or under the direction of licensed physicians or medical 
officers of the United States, for medicinal purposes, is authorized by the 
Secretary of the Navy. 

(6) All prior violations of former regulations and all penalties incurred 
thereunder shall be prosecuted and enforced in the same manner and with 
the same effect as if these superseding regulations had not been established. 

(7) This order shall take effect Saturday, 16 March, 1918, at 4 o’clock 
post-meridian.? 

JosrepHuS DANIELS. 


The army and the navy having been put on precisely the same 
basis so far as war prohibition was concerned, the following 
rulings apply to both alike: 


The War Department authorizes the following: 

Purveyors of “soft drinks” will be permitted to set up their establish- 
ments within the two-mile “dry” zone which will surround the 16 new army 
cantonments. Although the War Department has issued no rules as regards 
granting concession privileges to dealers in ice cream and soda water, it is 
understood that the regulations now in force with respect to army posts 
will apply. x 

There will be an effort on the part of the War Department to make the 
dry zone as “wet” as possible, within the limits of absolute temperance; 
which means that would-be concessionaires may make application to the 
cantonment commanders, and, if they are able to prove that they will sell 
only “soft drinks” will be permitted to set up their tents and go ahead.? 


1 From Official Bulletin, March 13, 1918. 
2 [bid., June 20, 1917. 


THE UNITED STATES 159 


The Official Bulletin is publishing a course of 30 lessons for the benefit 
of men selected for service in the National Army as a practical help in get- 
ting started in the right way. [Lesson No. 10 contains the following] : 

Congress has provided that “it shall be unlawful to sell any intoxicating 
liquor, including beer, ale, or wine to any officer or member of the military 
forces while in uniform,” an exception being made in a case of liquor re- 
quired for medical purposes. Under authority of the same act, it has also 
been ruled that alcoholic liquors shall not be sold within five miles of any 
military camp, an exception being made in case there is an incorporated 
city or town within that limit. It has further been provided that “the keeping 
or setting up of houses of ill-fame, brothels, or bawdy houses within five 
miles of any military camp . . . is prohibited.” All these provisions and 
restrictions are in the interest of every right-minded soldier. They go a 
long way toward insuring clean and healthful living conditions in the camps. 
They will help to make every soldier more efficient and better able to give 
a good account of himself. [August 23, 1917.] 


The Secretary of War has issued the following statement: 

Considerable confusion has arisen concerning the purpose and meaning 
of the new regulations under Section 12 of the Draft Act, in regard to the 
sale, gift, and serving of liquor to soldiers in uniform. 

The purpose of these regulations is to facilitate the detection and con- 
viction of bootleggers who have been furnishing liquor to soldiers outside 
the zones surrounding the camps. 

Heretofore gifts of liquor to soldiers outside such zones did not violate 
either the law or the regulations thereunder. Much liquor was being fur- 
nished soldiers by bootleggers who operated out of saloons, in alleys, in 
rooms in hotels, rooming houses, and other secret places. It was almost 
impossible to prove sales in such cases and many lawbreakers escaped prose- 
cution, because the only offense that the law or the regulations covered was 
the sale of liquor to soldiers. 

The regulations do not relax in any way the grip which the government 
has on the situation, but, on the contrary, greatly strengthen this grip. It 
will now be possible to convict the vast majority of bootleggers who are 
found handing liquor to soldiers without having to prove a sale. The excep- 
tion as to the private homes outside zones does not give any liberty of action 
which did not already exist before these new regulations were promulgated, 
and, moreover, does not allow any subterfuge which would violate either the 
letter or the spirit of the law. 

If this exception is abused I shall not, of course, hesitate to recommend 
to the President the further extension of the regulations.1 


The Official Bulletin for February 26, 1918, contains a state- 
ment which says in substance that the rule against giving, selling 
(etc.) liquor to soldiers will not be relaxed, according to an 


1 Official Bulletin, February 23, 1918. 


160 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


announcement by R. B. Fosdick, Chairman of the War Depart- 
ment Commission on Training Camp Activities; also that the 
definition of the term “military camp” has been enlarged to 
embrace training camps for the Ordnance and Quartermaster’s 
Departments and medical officers throughout the United States, 
Hawaii and Porto Rico. 

The Official Bulletin of March 9, 1918, contains the following: 


The Secretary of the Navy has signed a general order, publishing regu- 
lations to continue during the present emergency, under Section 12 of the 
Selective Draft Act, as made applicable to the naval service. These regula- 
tions govern the prohibition of alcoholic liquors in or near certain places 
under naval jurisdiction and to the officers and enlisted men of the navy. 
They are similar to those issued by the War Department in Bulletin No. 5 
of February 8, 1918, except that the width of the “dry zone” surrounding 
the designated naval stations is uniformly five miles, irrespective of whether 
or not an incorporated city or town lies within such distance. 

Until otherwise ordered, the following stations are affected by these regu- 
lations: 

Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 

Naval Training Station, Newport, R. I. 

Naval Training Station, Norfolk, Va. 

Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, III. 

Naval Training Station, Naval Operating Base, Hampton Roads, Va. 

Training Camp, Navy Yard, Mare Island, Cal. 

Marine Barracks, Paris Island, S. C. 

Marine Barracks, Quantico, Va. 


Within the five-mile zones about these places alcoholic liquors, including 
beer, ale, and wine, shall not, either directly or indirectly, be sold, given, 
served, or knowingly delivered by one person to another, except that this 
shall not apply to the giving or serving of such liquor in a private home to 
members of the family or bona fide guests other than officers or members 
of the naval forces, or to the sale or gift of such liquor by registered phar- 
macists to licensed physicians or medical officers of the United States for 
medical purposes, or to the administering of such liquor by them for this 
purpose. The shipment of liquor to any place within these zones is also 
prohibited, except to a private home or to registered pharmacists, licensed 
physicians, or medical officers for medical purposes. 

Outside of these zones liquor shall not, directly or indirectly, be sold, 
given, served, or knowingly delivered to any officer or member of the naval 
forces, except for medical purposes by a licensed physician or medical officer, 
with the provisions that this regulation shall not apply to the giving or serv- 
ing of such liquor in a private home to members of the family or bona fide 
guests. The Secretary of the Navy hopes, however, that the public at large 


THE UNITED STATES 161 


will refrain from offering to members of the naval forces, particularly the 
younger element, any intoxicating liquor, even in private homes outside of 
the “dry zones.” 


The article goes on to state that the Secretary of the Navy 
also issued a statement saying that these regulations had been 
made necessary by the existence of unbearable evils near the 
areas above mentioned. Mr. Daniels received many letters from 
officers in charge of training stations, calling attention to the 
need of some such regulations. 


On December 26, 1917, the following resolution was passed at a meeting 
of the Newport War Camp Community Service Committee on Training Camp 
Activities, the members of which were elected at a town meeting by citizens. 

“Whereas the presence of liquor in Newport might be a source of disaster 
to vital government interests, and 

“Whereas the President of the United States has the authority to prohibit 
intoxicating liquor being sold within a specified distance of naval or military 
posts: Be it 

“Resolved, by the Newport War Camp Service Committee on Training 
Camp Activities, that the President of the United States be requested to 
direct that no liquor be sold in Newport, and that, through the control of 
the source of the supply of liquor by internal revenue officials, no intoxicat- 
ing liquor be allowed to be sent to Newport.” 


On December 17, 1917, the inspector of ordnance in charge at the torpedo 
station at Newport wrote: : 

“Tt is believed that every danger against explosion has been guarded 
against except one. This one is the presence of many saloons in the city 
of Newport. Liquor is brought to the torpedo station in spite of efforts to 
keep it out. Workmen have been discharged and men have been court- 
martialed and punished. The Newport saloons may pretend to refuse to 
sell liquor to the men in uniform. There are bottle gangs in the streets 
that do a thriving business. Men of the bottle gang are occasionally arrested 
and given a few weeks in jail, but this does not prevent nor deter others 
from selling liquor. I believe that the ease with which liquor can be obtained 
‘by men in uniform is a source of constant and ever present danger to the 
torpedo station, to the vital needs of the military situation, and actually in- 
viting a disaster that would be inconceivably terrible. It would paralyze 
the torpedo station and the ships of the navy yet to be commissioned.” 


Again, on December 27, 1917, the same officer wrote: 
“The safety of this station, and the tremendous quantities of torpedoes 
held here for issue imperatively demand that every factor of danger should 


é ; 
162 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


be removed. At the present time no factor can be considered negligible. The 
presence of liquor in Newport is a source of danger.” 


Under date of February 19, 1918, two reports have been received by the 
Commission on Training Camp Activities from. their representatives at New- 
port, from which the following is quoted: 

“Bootlegging needs attention. Uniformed men experience little difficulty 
in obtaining all the liquor they want, judging from observations made and 
from admissions of the ‘boys’ themselves. Five actual bootlegging instances 
were seen in which three saloons and one grocery and liquor store figured. 

., All sailors who were interviewed admitted that booze is easily ob- 
tained.” 


These measures having been taken for the prevention of 
drunkenness in the army, the next great problem was that of 
preventing it among the civilian population. Nearly everyone 
had recognized the wisdom of these laws as applied to men in 
military and naval service. At any rate, they seem to have been 
accepted by the genéral public with very little opposition or even 
discussion. But when the public itself is expected to remain 
sober, it is another question. Most of us are Puritans in our 
ideas as to what is good for other people, but as for ourselves 
we prefer to do as we please without hindrance from the 
government. 

It can not be very much worse for a soldier or a sailor to be 
drunk than for an officer of government, a manager or a worker 
in a munition plant, a coal mine, or a shipyard. During the 
coal shortage in the winter of 1917-18, the fuel administrator 
for the city of Philadelphia found it necessary to forbid the 
sale of intoxicating liquor to the drivers of coal teams during 
working hours. This is merely a sample of the value of sobriety 
among the civilian workers. The argument that these men have 
always been used to alcoholic drink, and therefore can not be 
expected to get along without it, applies equally well to soldiers 
and sailors. The difference seems to be that soldiers and sailors 
are under discipline and not supposed to take much part in 
politics. Therefore they accept, perhaps with grumbling, but 
without political agitation, such laws and regulations as are 
placed over them. Others do not. 


THE UNITED STATES 163 


Here, again, we are in contact with one of the disagreeable, 
but outstanding, facts of our social life, namely, that the carry- 
ing on of a great war is as much of a demagogic as of an ad- 
ministrative or military problem. The question, what can the 
people be led to do? is quite as important as the question what 
ought they to do. It was repeatedly urged by men in all sorts 
of positions, that whatever the merits of the prohibition ques- 
tion, the people would not stand it; that if prohibition were 
carried, even by overwhelming majorities, the workingmen 
would rebel against the majority and refuse to work, thus crip- 
pling the government in the prosecution of the war. 

It could be shown, however, that the government was al- 
ready being crippled through the inefficiency caused by drunk- 
enness. One of the limiting factors is coal; but the output of 
coal, it is repeatedly claimed, was reduced by the tendency of 
considerable numbers to get drunk on Sunday and to be unfit 
for work on Monday. But, on the other hand, it was urged 
that if they were not permitted to get drunk, they would rebel 
and refuse to work at all. 

This poor opinion of the quality and the loyalty of working- 
men was freely expressed by men in high position in the federal 
and State governments, as well as by their own accredited 
leaders. Senator Lodge, of Massachusetts, is quoted in the 
Official Bulletin of June 29, 1917, as follows: 


[The Senate debated over the Food Bill in session June 28, 1917.1] Sena- 
tor Lodge made a speech in opposition to the recommendations in the bill to 
prohibit the manufacture of beer. The element above all else to be consid- 
ered, he said, was a united public sentiment, which was a great motive force 
behind this war. He pointed out that a considerable portion of the people 
did not consider beer a harmful thing and that it would arouse resentment 
and anger to stop it at a time when the country ought to be united. “What- 
ever clamor is raised now,” said Senator Lodge, “there is one thing the 
American people will not forgive—and that is anything that will divide senti- 
ment and thus hinder us in the task of winning the war.” 


This would seem to be an admission that prohibitionists were 
loyal enough to support the government even if it permitted 


liquor to be manufactured and sold as usual, and at the same 
time an expression of fear lest the anti-prohibitionists might not 


164 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


be loyal enough to support the government if it interfered with 
the liquor business, If this confidence, on the one hand, and 
fear on the other, were well grounded, they would furnish a 
sound argument in favor of letting things alone. In a time of 
crisis the government must always, unfortunately, placate the 
less loyal elements—those who are thoroughly loyal will support 
the government anyway. If the confidence and fear expressed 
above were reversed, that is, if there was a well grounded fear 
that the prohibitionists would refuse to support the government 
unless it prohibited liquor, and a well grounded confidence that 
the anti-prohibitionists would support the government anyway, 
the alarmists would undoubtedly have said, by all means let us 
have prohibition in order that there may be “a united public 
sentiment.” 

Of course, if it were a question of distracting public atten- 
tion from the war rather than of dividing public sentiment re- 
garding it, the case would be different. There are numerous 
humiliating examples of reformers who are busy pestering the 
President and Congress over reforms which have nothing to do 
with the war, but which the agitators hope that the government 
will adopt merely to get rid of the nuisance of agitation. As 
pointed out in the beginning of this monograph, temperance re- 
form has been pressed as a war measure not at all by those who 
have anything personal to gain from it, but by those who see that 
the conservation of man power and food materials is vital to 
the effective prosecution of the war. In fact, the measures for 
the elimination of drunkenness and the conservation of food 
materials have been enacted mainly by those who have never © 
taken any active interest in temperance reform as such. 

The same doubts as were expressed by Senator Lodge as to 
the willingness of the anti-prohibitionists to support the govern- 
ment in the event of prohibition, were expressed by Mr. Samuel 
Gompers. He is quoted as saying in the Washington Post for 
December 17, 1917: 


A large number of Americans, whether natives or by adoption, drink 
beer, and in some instances light wines, as a part of their daily meals. Is 


THE UNITED STATES 165 


prohibition or the threat of prohibition calculated to tranquillize and win 
them to the support of our country and the great cause in which we are 
engaged—or otherwise? Is it wise to bring so great a controversial question 
to the foreground during these crucial days when we need the united sup- 
port, in spirit and action, of all our people? 


On the other hand, it was urged that many States and parts 
of States are already dry, and that workers in these dry States 
and districts had shown no disposition to shirk the duties of 
citizenship because of the difficulty of securing drink. To this 
it was replied, first, that prohibition is not very well enforced, 
and, second, that the prohibition States are those with the lowest 
percentages of foreign born population. Presumably the loyalty 
of the foreign born may not be quite so strong as that of the 
native born, and their attachment to drink may be a little 
stronger. Therefore there may be some ground for the un- 
easiness lest national prohibition, which would undoubtedly be 
enforced more effectively than local prohibition, and which would 
apply to our large cities made up largely of foreign born peoples 
who have not yet become strongly attached to our country, 
might provoke resentment and even hostility. No doubt the 
pro-German element would be prompt in taking advantage of 
every latent discontent of this kind. 

At any rate the question resolves itself into this: Is the dan- 
ger of loss of man power through the disloyalty of the would-be 
drinkers under prohibition greater than that of the loss of 
man power through drunkenness in the absence of prohibition. 
So far as the army and navy are concerned, the authorities evi- 
dently think that it is not. They fear drunkenness under non- 
prohibition in the army camps, navy yards, etc., more than they 
do resentment and disloyalty under prohibition. The political 
leaders of the civilian population, however, do not all seem to 
have the same confidence in the loyalty of their followers. 


CHAPTER VIII 
The Conservation of Food Materials 


At the time of our entrance upon the conflict, the food ques- 
tion had become one of the principal questions of the war. The 
slogan, “Food Will Win the War,” was sounded almost imme- 
diately. The unscrupulous U-boat campaign was the cause of a 
threatened food shortage in France and England, and at the 
same time the culmination of a long series of barbaric acts 
which were driving us into the war. Next to the organization 
and training of an army, the most stupendous task laid upon this 
country was that of supplying food to those with whom we had 
taken sides. A vigorous campaign for the conservation of food 
was started almost immediately. Though officially this had 
nothing to do with war time prohibition, it did not take long 
for large numbers of people to see that one very important 
source of waste was the manufacture of potable alcohol. Even 
if the mass of the people had been slow to see this point, they 
could not long ignore it because the organized temperance forces 
of the country began actively calling attention to it. 

Unfortunately, however, there were at first no authoritative 
statistics published as to the exact amounts of food materials 
used in the liquor industries. The reports of the Commissioner 
of Internal Revenue contained the figures as to the materials 
used in the manufacture of distilled spirits, but not in the manu- 
facture of malt liquors. Various estimates were made, however, 
but they did not all agree. 

The matter was settled finally by the publication of authentic 
figures in the Crop Report of the United States Department of 
Agriculture for May, 1917. These figures were taken from the 

166 


THE UNITED STATES 167 


records of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and virtually 
closed the discussion. The table follows: 


MATERIALS USED TO MAKE ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS IN THE 
UNITED STATES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 
JUNE 30, 1916 
(United States Internal Revenue figures) 

For fer- 


mented For distilled 
Material liquors.* spirits. Total. 

Malt (expressed in terms of barley), bushels = 439,973 4,073,262 56,513,235 
WORT PDUSHE Sine craw s/ciate sists side. visienare cies asetale’s f13 573, 521 32,069,542 45,643,063 
Rye, TELS 5 Breage ce eee ia nares OY trae 3,116,612 3,116,612 
WATS MHUSHELS sevieidatecctawie aes. od oaie ssgie eos ais NG ome 9,807 9,807 
Wheat, bushels Sire ctasite 3,373 3,373 
Barley, bushels Sis on oer 148 148 
HAH GEMMMITTS el Gu rs teres oi leone atic Daren aie 25/4 ee (00 Ssconsnee 2,354,000 
Other materials reported, in bushels........ 358 68,822 141,177 

otal eram, ineluded above ...2..-.-+-- 68,439,849 39,341,566 107,781,415 
Grape sugar or maltose, pounds............ 54,934,621 §........ 54,934,621 
FIOM SE POUMAS reece Clee hevesicrcine ae cveve.o W/erevelaitie SAAS OLO LE Heri. 37,451,610 
WiolasseswigallonS: 2h cists cteiels cieleis ose sisisia's Sibauteteteae 152,142,232 152,142,232 
IGiliicose onsinip, gallons) fecsle< cei enicileee TOI tasers 72, 742 854 
Other materials— 

iinaealllOms) se shaisrs erste anes s sigerin.c sess DKS EY Ee Se eee 19,112 

lei ROKNIEY Ret eee aren Bead Ach omer Nn DAT SOOVA, ee seids « 24,756, 974 


* Totals for materials used for fermented liquors were compiled by the 
Bureau of Crop Estimates, United States Department of Agriculture, from 
unpublished records of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 

+ Includes cerealine and grits. 

t Rice, reported as 141,249,292 pounds. Estimated roughly as 2,354,000 
bushels. 

§ Included, if any, in “Other materials.” 


Reducing the seven principal items in this table to pounds in 
order to get a common denominator, we get the following 
quantities: 


AGM sais Sarevela\eve/cietelelee «.-- 56,513,235 bushels X 48 = 2,712,635,280 pounds 
ORM sors a cc ccs ogae 45,643,063 bushels X 56 = 2,556,011,528 pounds 
LPSTRY yo dies ie COCO Eee tee 3,116,612 bushels X 56 = 174,530,272 pounds 
TRACE Se, dls a Cla re meee aR Meee lati ai ie ASN ON RIAA A eS 141,249,292 pounds 
Grapessucateor maltose: cs ose you hice «ete ee 54,934,621 pounds 
INTOIASSES, |) -).ccfe clshaicsieieys svace slerd 152,142,232 gallons X 11 = 1,673,564,552 pounds 
Glucose or sirup............ 2,742,854 gallons X 11 = 30,171,394 pounds 

TNO ally SASS SHE MER ere BN ier cre Ph he mah re NUN ee eal 7,343,096,939 pounds 


The question was rather persistently asked, why urge our 
people to economize in food as a patriotic measure, and at the 


168 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


same time allow this large item of waste to continue? It was 
pointed out, of course, that this was only a small fraction of 
the total food produced in the country, the grain used being 
between two and three per cent of our total grain crop. On 
the other hand, the point was made that no single item of wasted 
food amounts to a very large percentage of the total food pro- 
duction of the country, and that food conservation means the 
elimination of all these items of waste, even though each one, 
taken separately, may be relatively small. 

So far as distilled spirits were concerned, there was little 
difference of opinion among those in positions of high respon- 
sibility. Opinion was divided as to the best policy to pursue 
with respect to “malt and vinous liquors.” Congress promptly 
prohibited the use of food materials for the manufacture of 
distilled spirits for beverage purposes, but threw upon the Presi- 
dent the responsibility of deciding what to do with the question 
of beer and wine. In an act, commonly called the Food Con- 
servation Act, but officially entitled “an act to provide further 
for the national security and defense by encouraging the pro- 
duction, conserving the supply, and controlling the distribution 
of food products and fuel,” approved August 10, 1917, it was 
provided as follows: 

Section 15. That from and after 30 days from the date of the approval of 
this act no foods, fruits, food materials, or feeds shall be used in the produc- 
tion of distilled spirits for beverage purposes; Provided, That under such 
rules, regulations, and bonds as the President may prescribe, such materials 
may be used in the production of distilled spirits exclusively for other than 
beverage purposes, or for the fortification of pure sweet wines as defined by 
the act entitled “An act to increase the revenue, and for other purposes,” 
approved September 8, 1916. Nor shall there be imported into the United 
States any distilled spirits. Whenever the President shall find that limitation, 
regulation, or prohibition of the use of foods, fruits, food materials, or feeds 
in the production of malt or vinous liquors for beverage purposes, or that 
reduction of the alcoholic content of any such malt or vinous liquor, is essen- 
tial, in order to assure an adequate and continuous supply of food, or that the 
national security and defense will be subserved thereby, he is authorized, 
from time to time, to prescribe and give public notice of the extent of the 
limitation, regulation, prohibition, or reduction so necessitated. Whenever 


such notice shall have been given and shall remain unrevoked no person 
shall, after a reasonable time prescribed in such notice, use any foods, fruits, 


THE UNITED STATES 169 


food materials, or feeds in the production of malt or vinous liquors, or import 
any such liquors except under license issued by the President and in com- 
pliance with rules and regulations determined by him governing the pro- 
duction and importation of such liquors and the alcoholic content thereof. 
Any person who wilfully violates the provisions of this section, or who shall 
use any foods, fruits, food materials, or feeds in the production of malt 
or vinous liquors, or who shall import any such liquors, without first obtain- 
ing a license so to do when a license is required under this section, shall be 
punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more 
than two years, or both; Provided further, That nothing in this section shall 
be construed to authorize the licensing of the manufacture of vinous or malt 
liquors in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any civil sub- 
division thereof, where the manufacture of such vinous or malt liquor is 
prohibited. 

Section 16. That the President is authorized and directed to commandeer 
any or all distilled spirits in bond or in stock at the date of the approval 
of this act for redistillation, in so far as such redistillation may be necessary 
to meet the requirements of the government in the manufacture of muni- 
tions and other military and hospital supplies, or in so far as such redistilla- 
tion would dispense with the necessity of utilizing products and materials 
suitable for foods and feeds in the future manufacture of distilled spirits 
for the purposes herein enumerated. The President shall determine and pay 
a just compensation for the distilled spirits so commandeered; and if the 
compensation so determined be not satisfactory to the person entitled to 
receive the same such person shall be paid 75 per centum of the amount 
so determined by the President and shall be entitled to sue the United States 
to recover such further sum as, added to said 75 per centum, will make up 
such amount as will be just compensation for such spirits, in the manner 
provided by Section 24, Paragraph 20, and Section 145 of the Judicial Code. 


Inasmuch as the above act authorized the President to pro- 
hibit, restrict or regulate the manufacture of malt and vinous 
liquors, pressure was immediately brought to bear upon him to 
exercise this authority given him by prohibiting the manufacture 
and sale of these liquors also. Pressure was also exerted in the 
opposite direction. On the 8th of December he issued a procla- 
mation reducing by 30 per cent the quantity of food materials 
used in the manufacture of these liquors, and reducing the alco- 
holic content of all malt liquors except ale and porter to 2.75 
per cent. ‘ 

The following is a copy of the proclamation: 


1From Statutes of the United States of America, passed at the First Ses- 
sion of the Sixty-fifth Congress, 1917, Chapter 53, page 282. 


170 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


[LIMITING ALCOHOLIC CONTENT OF MALT LIQUOR] 
By the President of the United States of America 
A PROCLAMATION 


Whereas, under and by virtue of an act of Congress entitled “An act 
to provide further for the national security and defense by encouraging the 
production, conserving the supply, and controlling the distribution of food 
products and fuel,’ approved by the President on August 10, 1917, it is pro- 
vided in Section 15, among other things, as follows: 

“Whenever the President shall find that limitation, regulation, or prohi- 
bition of the use of foods, fruits, food materials, or feeds in the production 
of malt or vinous liquors for beverage purposes, or that reduction of the 
alcoholic content of any such malt or vinous liquor, is essential, in order to 
assure an adequate and continuous supply of food, or that the national secur- 
ity and defense will be subserved thereby, he is authorized, from time to 
time, to prescribe and give public notice of the extent of the limitation, regu- 
lation, prohibition, or reduction so necessitated. Whenever such notice shall 
have been given and shall remain unrevoked, no person shall after a reason- 
able time prescribed in such notice, use any foods, fruits, food materials, or 
feeds in the production of malt or vinous liquors, or import any such liquors 
except under license issued by the President and in compliance with rules and 
regulations determined by him governing the production and importation of 
such liquors and the alcoholic content thereof ;” 

Now, therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of 
America, by virtue of the powers conferred on me by said act of Congress, 
do hereby find and determine that the national security and defense will be 
subserved by the limitation of the amount of foods, fruits, food materials and 
feeds used in the production of malt liquor, and by reduction of the alcoholic 
content of malt liquor produced in the United States. And by this proclama- 
tion I prescribe and give public notice that on and after January 1, 1918, the 
total amount of foods, fruits, food materials and feeds used by any person in 
the production of malt liquor shall not exceed seventy per cent (70%) of the 
average consumption of any such foods, fruits, food materials, or feeds in 
the production of such malt liquor by such person during the period from 
January 1, 1917, to January 1, 1918, the unit of time to be fixed by regulation; 
and that on and after January 1, 1918, no malt liquor except ale and porter 
shall be produced in the United States containing more than two and three- 
quarters per cent (2.75%) of alcohol by weight. 

No person shall, after January 1, 1918, use any foods, fruits, food mate- 
rials, or feeds in the production of malt liquor, unless he secures a license so 
to do, to be issyed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and complies 
with rules and regulations to be hereafter promulgated governing the pro- 
duction of such liquor and the alcoholic content thereof; and no person shall 
import any such liquor except under license to be issued by the Division of 
Customs, Treasury Department, and in compliance with any rules and regu- 
lations governing the importation of such liquors which may be promulgated. 


THE UNITED STATES 17 


In Witness WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal 
of the United States to be affixed. 

Done in the District of Columbia, this 8th day of December in the year 
of our Lord one thousand, nine hundred and seventeen, and of the Inde- 
pendence of the United States of America the one hundred and forty-second. 


[Sear] Wooprow WILSON. 


By the President: 
Rozpert Lansine, Secretary of State. 


Aside from the direct restriction of the output of beer, the 
federal Fuel Administration restricted the amount of coal which 
could be used by breweries, as nonessential industries. This 
was in striking contrast with the attitude of the fuel adminis- 
tration of several of the States, who took the absurd position 
that there were no nonessential industries, and refused to cut 
down the coal supply of breweries even when munition fac- 
tories and other industrial establishments engaged in making 
war materials were handicapped through lack of coal. The 
Official Bulletin for January 9, 1918, published the following 
significant statement: 

One of the striking instances of curtailment is im the brewing industry. 
Representatives of the American Brewers’ Association and others affiliated 
with the industry came to Washington last week and after a conference with 


the Fuel Administration volunteered a reduction of 700,000 tons (of coal) 
annually. 


Following the President’s proclamation restricting the amount 
of food materials which might be used in the manufacture 
of malt liquor, the Food Administration issued an order 
forbidding all purchase of grain for malting until rules could be 
formulated for carrying out the purposes of the proclamation. 
The Official Bulletin for February 16, 1918, contains the fol- 
lowing: 

In order to insure a greater supply of cereals which may be substituted 
for wheat the United States Food Administration has sent the following 
telegram to all maltsters throughout the country: 

“You are directed, until rules governing maltsters are issued, to cease 
all purchases of barley and other grains for malting.” 


It is estimated that the maltsters now have on hand a sufficient supply 
of barley and other grains to last from three to six months. 


172 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Later it was ruled that the restriction of the use of grain 
for malting purposes applied to near beer and temperance drinks 
as well as to beer of full alcoholic strength; though, of course, 
the rule relating to the reduction of the alcoholic content of 
‘beer could have no bearing on drinks which either contain no 
alcohol, or less than 2.75 per cent. The Official Bulletin for 
March 1, 1918, says: 


Near beer and temperance drinks which fall within the designation of 
malt liquor will not profit from the President’s recent proclamation, which 
limited brewers of beer to 70 per cent of the amounts of grains and other 
food materials that were used last year. 

The Food Administration rules that the proclamation applies the same 
limitation to so-called temperance beers, as well as beers and ales. These 
prohibition beverages naturally are not affected by the limitation of alcoholic 
content, but they are affected by the limitation of the amounts of grain and 
foodstuffs which may be used in their manufacture. 


On March 9, 1918, the Food Administration having promul- 
gated rules for carrying out the terms of the President’s procla- 
mation, again gave permission to purchase grain for malting 
purposes. The Official Bulletin for that date publishes the 
following: 


The Food Administration authorizes the following statement: 

The United States Food Administration has promulgated special rules 
limiting the manufacture, storage, and distribution of malt, devised to re- 
strict the manufacture of malt to the minimum absolutely required for legiti- 
mate purposes until the new grain crop is available. This is in line with the 
President’s recent proclamation limiting the amount of grain which can be 
used by brewers to 70 per cent of last year’s consumption. 

The Food Administration’s order of February, temporarily stopping alto- 
gether the purchase of barley and other grains by maltsters, is now abro- 
gated, since it was to remain in effect only until these general rules were 
issued. 

By the new rules maltsters are forbidden to malt more than 70 per cent 
of the amounts of grains used by them for the corresponding six months 
periods last year. Malt used last year in the manufacture of yeast, malt 
extract, malt flour, or vinegar, is not to be counted in calculating the amounts 
to be permitted this year. 

Maltsters are forbidden to carry over the summer any of this year’s 
gtains and to malt any of it after July 1. 

They are forbidden to have in hand or under control at any time more 
grain and malt and grain being malted than the equivalent of 120 days’ out- 


THE UNITED STATES 173 


put, and can not have more than a 60 days supply of unmalted grain on hand 
at any time. 

Contracts are forbidden involving delivery later than 120 days after- 
ward, except in the case of contracts with the Government of the United 
States or that of any of the Allies. This rule, however, does not invalidate 
any contract made before February 15, 1918. 

Maltsters are further forbidden to sell malt to any persons except brew- 
ers licensed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or registered distil- 
lers, or yeast manufacturers, or manufacturers of malt flour or malt extract, 
or manufacturers of vinegar, except by special written permission of the 
Food Administration. They are forbidden to deliver malt in excess of the 
purchaser’s requirements for the next 60 days, and between May 1 and 
August 15 the amount delivered shall not exceed the purchaser’s require- 
ments up to October 15. 

Brokerage on sales of malt either by the maltster or through a broker, 
agent, salesman, or any representative is limited to 2 cents a bushel, and no 
sales are permissible except by signed contract. 

The purpose of the limitation of the use of grains by brewers to 70 per 
cent of the amounts they used last year and of these regulations of malt- 
sters, which are in accord with those limitations, is to insure a greater supply 
of cereals which may be substituted for wheat. 


Various efforts were made from time to time to get Con- 
gress to act in the matter and prohibit the use of food materials 
in the production of all alcoholic beverages, as it had already 
done in the case of distilled spirits. One of the most significant 
of these was a provision attached as a rider to the Food Pro- 
duction Act for 1919. This act was introduced as H. R. 11945 
and is entitled: An Act to Enable the Secretary of Agriculture 
to Carry Out, during the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1919, 
the Purposes of the Act Entitled “An Act to Provide Further 
for the National Security and Defense by Stimulating Agricul- 
ture and Facilitating the Distribution of Agricultural Products.” 
It authorizes the appropriation for the use of the Department 
of Agriculture of various sums for various purposes, among 
others the increasing of food production and elimination of 
waste. The part relating to this subject reads as follows: 

Fourth. For increasing food production and eliminating waste and pro- 
moting conservation of food by educational and demonstrational methods, 
through county, district, and urban agents and others; for the following 


stated purposes and in amounts as follows: General administration of ex- 
tension work, $35,000; home economics work, $25,000; extension work in the 


174 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


northern and western States, $134,200; county agent work, $1,893,000; boys’ 
and girls’ club work, $382,900; home demonstration work, $1,327,400; exten- 
sion work in the southern States, $90,000; county agent work, $1,333,815; 
boys’ club work, $75,300; home demonstration work, $803,385; in all, $6,100,000. 
No part of this appropriation shall be available for any purpose unless 
there shall have been previously issued the proclamation authorized by Sec- 
tion fifteen of the act of August tenth, nineteen and seventeen, entitled “An 
act to provide further for the national security and defense by stimulating 
agriculture and facilitating the distribution of agricultural products,’ such 
proclamation being the prohibition of the use of foods, fruits, food materials, 
or feeds in the production of malt or vinous liquors for beverage purposes.+ 
[Italics author’s.] 


Discussion over this proviso raged fiercely, though the oppo- 
sition of the Administration tended to throw cold water upon it. 
The fear seemed to be that it would interfere too drastically 
with the habits of large numbers of people. It was also urged 
that, under the rule reducing the alcoholic content of beer to 
2.75 per cent, the evil of drunkenness would be greatly reduced, 
and that some saving of food materials had already been effected 
by the rule limiting the brewers to 70 per cent of the food 
materials formerly used up in the manufacture of their product. 
On the other hand, it was argued that while undoubtedly both 
rules were good so far as they went, they did not go far enough. 
Why, it was asked, should we waste any food in the production 
of a nonessential, and why should we allow an intoxicating 
beverage to be manufactured at all, even though it is less strong 
and less intoxicating than that which was previously manu- 
factured? The question is hard to answer. 

Various substitutes for the above amendment were offered, 
but finally a vote was obtained on November 18, 1918, upon the 
following, which has come to be known as the War Time Pro- 
hibition Bill: 

Be it enacted that after June 30, 1919, until the conclusion of the present 
war, and thereafter until the termination of demobilization, the date of which 
shall be determined and proclaimed by the President of the United States, 


for the purpose of conserving the man-power of the nation, and to increase 
efficiency in the production of arms, munitions, ships, food and clothing for 


1From Hearings Before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 
U. S. Senate, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session, on H. R. 11945, page 4. 


THE UNITED STATES 175 


the army and navy, it shall be unlawful to sell for beverage purposes any 
distilled spirits, and during said time no distilled spirits held in bond shall 
be removed therefrom for beverage purposes except for export. 

After May 1, 1919, until the conclusion of the present war, and thereafter 
until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined 
and proclaimed by the President of the United States, no grains, cereals, 
fruit or other food products shall be used in the manufacture or production of 
beer, wine or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquor for beverage purposes. 

After June 30, 1919, until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter 
until the termination of demobilization, the date of which shall be determined 
and proclaimed by the President of the United States, no beer, wine or other 
intoxicating malt or vinous liquor shall be sold for beverage purposes, except 
for export. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby authorized and 
directed to prescribe rules and regulations, subject to the approval of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, in regard to the manufacture and sale of distilled 
liquors and the removal of distilled spirits held in bond after June 30, 1919, 
until this act shall cease to operate, for other than beverage purposes; also 
in regard to the manufacture, sale and distribution of wine for sacramental, 
medicinal or other beverage uses. 

After the approval of this act no distilled malt, vinous or other intoxi- 
cating liquors shall be imported into the United States during the continuance 
of the present war and period of demobilization. 

Any person who violates any of the foregoing provisions shall be punished 
by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $1,000, or 
by both such imprisonment and fine. 

Provided, that the President of the United States be and hereby is author- 
ized and empowered, at any time after the passage of this act, to establish 
zones of such size as he may deem advisable about coal mines, munition fac- 
tories, ship building plants and such other plants for war material as may 
seem to him to require such action whenever in his opinion the creation of 
such zones is necessary to or advisable in the proper prosecution of the 
war, and that he is hereby authorized and empowered to prohibit the sale, 
manufacture or distribution of intoxicating liquors in such zones, and that 
any violation of the President’s regulations in this regard shall be punished 
by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than 
$1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

Provided further, that nothing in this act shall be construed to interfere 
with the power conferred upon the President by Section 15, of the food 
control act, approved August 10, 1917. 


This act received the President’s signature on November 21, 
1918, and became a law. 


CHAPTER IX 


The Agitation for Permanent Prohibition 


Entirely apart from the measures for the elimination of 
drunkenness in the army and navy, and the conservation of food 
materials, the question of nationwide prohibition as a moral 
issue continued to be agitated. This agitation had been growing 
in strength for several years before the war, but it took on a 
new emphasis as soon as war was declared. 

Shortly before the declaration of war, a very significant act 
had been passed for the protection of dry territory. This act, 
dated March 3, 1917, excluded from the mails all journals 
carrying advertisements of liquor into dry territory. 

The Official Bulletin for June 2, 1917, publishes the follow- 
ing regarding this law, and the ruling of the Post Office De- 
partment regarding it: 


The Post Office Department has issued a bulletin showing the States in 
whole or in part to which it is unlawful, on and after July 1 next, to address 
mail matter containing either advertisements or solicitations for orders for 
intoxicating liquors. 

The bulletin is issued under Section 5 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1917, which provides “that no letter, postal card, circular, news- 
paper, pamphlet, or publication of any kind” containing either advertisements 
or solicitations for such orders “shall be deposited in or carried by the mails 
of the United States, or be delivered by any postmaster or letter carrier” 
when addressed to “any place or point in any State or Territory” in which 
it is by the local law forbidden to advertise or to solicit orders for liquor. 

The department construes the act as barring from the mails matter of 
the character described when addressed to States or political subdivisions 
thereof in which it is forbidden either to advertise or to solicit orders. 

The issuance of the preliminary bulletin was decided upon in view of 
the large number of requests by newspapers and publishers throughout the 
country who are clamoring for information as to the territory from which 
the prohibited advertisements and solicitations will be barred. 

176 


THE UNITED STATES 177 


The bulletin follows: 


Liquor BuLuetin, No. 1 
May 14, 1917. 

Section 5 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1917, effective July 
1, 1917, is as follows: “That no letter, postal card, circular, newspaper, pam- * 
phlet, or publication of any kind containing any advertisement of spirituous, 
vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors of any kind, or con- 
taining a solicitation of an order or orders for said liquors, or any of them, 
shall be deposited in or carried by the mails of the United States, or be 
delivered by any postmaster or letter carrier, when addressed or directed to 
any person, firm, corporation, or association, or other addressee, at any place 
or point in any State or Territory of the United States at which it is by 
the law in force in the State or Territory at that time unlawful to advertise 
or solicit orders for such liquors, or any of them, respectively. 

“If the publisher of any newspaper or other publication or the agent of 
such publisher, or if any dealer in such liquors, or his agent, shall know- 
ingly deposit or cause to be deposited, or shall knowingly send or cause to 
be sent, anything to be conveyed or delivered by mail in -violation of the 
provisions of this section, or shall knowingly deliver or cause to be delivered 
by mail anything herein forbidden to be carried by mail, shall be fined not 
more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than six months or both; and for 
any subsequent offense shall be imprisoned not more than one year. Any 
person violating any provision of this section may be tried and punished, 
either in the district in which the unlawful matter or publication was mailed 
or to which it was carried by mail for delivery, according to direction 
thereon, or in which it was caused to be delivered by mail to the person 
to whom it was addressed. Whoever shall order, purchase, or cause intoxi- 
cating liquors to be transported in interstate commerce, except for scientific, 
sacramental, medicinal, and mechanical purposes, into any State or Territory 
the laws of which State or Territory prohibit the manufacture or sale 
therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes shall be punished as 
aforesaid; Provided, That nothing herein shall authorize the shipment of 
liquor into any State contrary to the laws of such State; Provided further, 
That the Postmaster General is hereby authorized and directed to make 
public from time to time in suitable bulletins or public notices the names of 
States in which it is unlawful to advertise or solicit orders for such liquors.” 


Later, on June 30, it published the following: 


The Post Office Department today (June 27) issued Liquor Bulletin, No. 
2, a 34-page booklet showing the territory to which it will be unlawful, on 
and after July 1, next, . . . to transmit through the mails matter con- 
taining advertisements or solicitations for orders for intoxicating liquor. . 

Twenty-three States are wholly affected by the act, and matter contain- 
ing either advertisements or solicitations for orders for intoxicating liquor 
will be unmailable . . . when addressed to any of the following: Alabama, 


178 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missis- 
sippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wash- 
ington, and West Virginia. 

The following States are partially affected by the act . . . . California, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 
Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Texas. 

The following are affected by the federal act at future dates, as follows: 
Alaska, January 1, 1918; Indiana, April 3, 1918; Michigan, April 30, 1918; 
Montana, December 31, 1918, and Utah, August 1, 1917. 

The following are not affected by the federal act: District of Columbia, 
Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Porto Rico, Missouri, 
Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. 

Ethyl-alcohol is regarded as an intoxicating liquor within the meaning 
of the act, but methyl-alcohol, wood alcohol, and denatured alcohol are not 
so regarded. 


Most significant of all, however, was the proposed prohibition 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This was 
introduced as a joint resolution in August, 1917, at the first 
session of the Sixty-fifth Congress, and reintroduced, with minor 
changes, in December, at the second session of the same Con- 
gress, and rather promptly adopted on December 28, some- 
what to the surprise, probably, of some of its supporters. 

The following is a copy: 


JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 


Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United - 
States of America, in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House con- 
curring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and 
hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of the Con- | 
stitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided 
by the Constitution: 

Article — 

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manu- 
facture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importa- 
tion thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and 
all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes, is 
hereby prohibited. 

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent 
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been rati- 


THE UNITED STATES 179 


fied as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several 
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of 
the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. 


By February 25, 1919, forty-five States had ratified the above 
amendment, the only States failing to ratify being Rhode Island, 
New Jersey and Connecticut. The order in which they ratified 
was as follows: 


ff RPISSISSINPI . oor an see aap waie es ese January 3, 1918 

Pe MAES Ae nena tech cesta de. jantary 10, 1918 

DMCHENCK YOY Sa hee ee oa ee eee January 14, 1918 

# Soutt Carolina (ss. dose ale cesses: = January 23, 1918 

SaNontie Dakota saecsc seo. ce ee eat January 25, 1918 

Ge Marylatid 05) aco wcse sacred ete seecs February 13, 1918 

PM IWOSIEAN A oao~ moe dein acts he © oii t« February 19, 1918 

SRC Pe Some cries c et cia on bi etiee cis aA March 4, 1918 

SR BYGLivthe qe ae tens oe oc 5 Ge cat eietial ee March 18, 1918 
iPeSouthebakoia eos e see tsce: eccee aca. March 20, 1918 
PO Mascachnsctts dss aac asca smlacics- 3s oe April 2, 1918 
2. RIND ICs hae See ee ee oe a eee May 24, 1918 
Los (SET ET RAE Be ean ns ek ae June 26, 1918 
14 .Vowtsiana® 2.5.23 Pa a erates ate wekO Siw cies August 8, 1918 
Romulilaritiee Ac See aces a ee ee ees 5 November 27, 1918 
ep Wiehican) sconce eee ee cee <2 oaks we January 2, 1919 
LF AMO TG eee pe lek oe a en January 7, 1919 
tee Olialionines sone to oes ee oie Ss ws January 7, 1919 
1G. Lai ea ee a ee ee ae Seen eee January 8, 1919 
Zain Ll EG) ies pee RRS rs are ae eg RE January 8, 1919 
#4 UES ON Ag 1b ae January 9, 1919 
27 NGS Te 7 ee ee eee January 13, 1919 
PARR CURESSEE, fe CO he 2 eet ote oo aalew taco January 13, 1919 
Ae TIBOEMM IE Fetes = aoe eee coe see <'oe January 13, 1919 
Ss UIST ETE A tee Enea ans area eee nea January 14, 1919 
ARKANSAS Rey ste see, ete ace an oie January 14, 1919 
ARIPO yess Po ooo oa reas oa ae ye oe January 14, 1919 
Pei NOREHE CarOlitias.. so ces sees wane hme January 14, 1919 
OMNGASISISE = SCR eer e er Se Oe ee Harare ae January 14, 1919 
Selabamio oo. 2s oe iccoac we ta ae cee January 14, 1919 
“SLi LOWE eB SES ee er eee Cen eE January 15, 1919 
SIO] Ge G Oe ee ee ee a January 15, 1919 
EPUOEEROIM 222 oon bx nde aete ae cnk ae ees January 15, 1919 
4. New Hampshire 22.2220. Cenc c ec see January 15, 1919 
5o2 Ue l Wiener hse te eee ee et, See January 15, 1919 
me Ne nraSKs |) 2. oe Soc ce ha mee see Sais January 16, 1919 
TAEMEISSONED 2 Seo = ae ts ocisacte is cnc January 16, 1919 
POCMA UN VOUEIFE bata. con Sots cinciny ae ae ates January 16, 1919 
PONV ISCONSHE Gi ada smal oe tasers. owe January 17, 1919 
Pi MANASINeSOE a aca yaad sae cs ae enc January 17, 1919 
AleaiNew. MCXICD. . osc ccs ss scaa bce casas January 20, 1919 
AMONG Wadd. (220 55 = aan 5 Osa os dee 6 Aaeraeiae January 21, 1919 
APU CEMIONE teen co cecmens oe ace c ec cs os January 29, 1919 
APN New Worle eco ck esa es oes wis ses ws January 29, 1919 


180 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS ~ 


It is doubtful if its most optimistic supporters expected such 
an overwhelming victory. Various efforts are being made to 
nullify the amendment, or to make it inoperative. To what ex- 
tent these efforts will succeed remains to be seen. 

State prohibition is not definitely connected with liquor con- 
trol in war time, nevertheless it is significant that more than 
three-fourths of the States that adopted prohibition as a State 
law did so after the European war began, and nearly half of 
them adopted it after we entered the war. It seems likely that 
the war had accelerated the movement. The following is a list 
of the States that have adopted prohibition as a State law, with 
the dates of its going into effect: 


Maine). (Constitutional) <i. .ccscuanar cee eee 1851 
Kansas,\(Constitutional)) S.ceet heen seer ee eee 1880. 
North) Dakotay (Gonstitutionall)) 22525 --- eee 1880 
Oklahoma (Constitutional) Gases sce ee eer 1907 
Georgia (Statutory) = so0- case ene ae eee 1908 
North Carolina, (Statutory) 2-2 on. eee 1909 
Nssissippi 1 (Statitony) ie eebeee 7eee eee 1909 
Mennessee’ (Statutonyn cscs csierte ete icndecs serene natn ee 1909 
West Visginia (Constitutional) )s25-5--.- 22 see eee 1914 
AMabama: \(Statutony ioe) {a leeieaine 2 an eereioess eee 
Arizona (Constitutional) 

WVinginia (Statutory): eavet eee pence ois hee eee 


Colorado (Constitutional) 
Oregon (Constitutional) 
Washington (Statutory) 


Arkansas, «( Statutory) fawasscctice enteral aeeettiers 

Lowa «(Statutory aise eso at ce a ee eee 

Ndahe GConstitutionall) igs 40242 enaciee eee ee eee 

South. Carolina’ (Statutory)! eeeeees sore eee ee eee 1916 
Nebraska “(Constitntianal) seman eemeecioe cao eee 1917 
South Dakota (Constitutional) sone - 265 ee eee 1917 
District of: Columbian (Statutory) ey-nan eee eee 1917 
Alaska: (Statatonys)i (hee olden: peat oe eens eee 1918 
Indiana: (Statutory) i.e. ae eee eee eee 1918 
Michigan’: (Constitutional) esas ae ee een ne see 1918 
New, Hampshire (Statutory) 2-oee nose e eee eee 1918 
Montana ‘(Constitutional Gees eee eee 1918 
New Mexico (Constitutional) .....................- 1918 
Texas (Statutony): eeu: see eee meas oe eee 1918 
Mlorida’ (Constitutional) * en os. nee eee eee eee eee 1919 
tah (Constitutional) 3. GeGe eee eee eeeee 1919 
@hio! (Constitutional) 7245 eet n eee Rees 1919 
Nevada’ (Statutoty) 41m. Seensekee eee nee eee 1919 
Wyoming (Constitutional) cnet te eee 1920 


Delaware '(Statutony)es ection sheer 1920 


CHAPTER X 
Conclusion 


As to the results of the measures thus far taken, there is 
very little to be said. The author has found no difference of 
opinion as to the wisdom and effectiveness of the rules for the 
prevention of drunkenness among the men in uniform. Never 
in the history of the world, probably, has there been the spectacle” 
presented by our military traming camps and cantonments, our 
navy yards, radio schools, and naval training stations. The 
common expectation is, and always has been, that the gathering 
together of vast numbers of young men, in the most volcanic 
period of their lives, under highly abnormal conditions, will 
produce a great deal of drunkenness and general turbulence 
immediately outside the areas within which severe discipline is 
enforced. In the present case, however, this expectation not 
only has not been realized, but the reverse has been true. There 
is probably no city or town in the country containing a civilian 
population as large as the military population of any of our 
cantonments, which does not show more drunkenness and tur- 
bulence than can be found in the neighborhood of these canton- 
ments. If we compare the general orderliness and behavior of 
these young men in uniform with that of the young men of our 
colleges and universities in peace time, the contrast in favor of 
the men in uniform is most glaring. The universal testimony is 
that there is less drunkenness, rowdyism and general turbulence 
among our soldiers and sailors than among college men who are 
not similarly protected from the evil of drink. 

This has not been the case in any previous war, except in 
isolated cases where a commanding officer has, on his own in1- 
tiative, protected his men from drink. There is no evidence to 
show that the volcanic nature of our young men has calmed 
down, or that lawlessness, rowdyism and turbulence have dimin- 

181 


182 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


ished in the slightest degree in our general population. The only 
explanation of the remarkable sobriety of our soldiers and sailors 
is that it is due to the fact that they are safeguarded against 
drink. 

No such improvement, however, is yet visible among our 
civilian population. The problem here is complicated by a num- 
ber of unusual conditions. The gathering together of consid- 
erable numbers of men in the neighborhood of shipyards, mu- 
nition plants and centers for the manufacture of other war 
supplies, most of whom are not under discipline, the fact that 
most of these men are receiving higher wages than they ever 
received before, might be expected to increase drunkenness some- 
what. This expectation has been realized except where the men 
have been safeguarded by local rules and regulations against 
~ drink. 

As to the conservation of food materials, the results are 
rather definite. The prohibition of the manufacture of distilled 
spirits for beverage purposes put a stop to all wastage of food 
materials for that purpose. How great that saving was can 
only be estimated on the basis of the table on page 167 (Part II, 
Chapter VIII). Something over 39,000,000 bushels of grain 
and 152,000,000 gallons of molasses had been used in the year 
ended June 30, 1916. This does not show how much of this 
was for beverage purposes. Aside from molasses, the principal 
item is corn, with barley and rye as the only minor grains used 
in quantities worth mentioning. 

The proclamation of the President reducing the amount of 
food material which could be used in brewing to 70 per cent 
of the prewar figure, is a little more definite. On the basis of 
the figures for 1916, this would effect a saving of 20,631,957 
bushels of grain and over 30,000,000 pounds of other materials, 
mainly grape sugar and glucose. This calculation is a mere 
matter of arithmetic and needs no discussion. 

As to the comparative merits of the English and the Amer- 
ican methods of dealing with the question of drunkennes§ among 
civilians in war time—that is, with the dispensary system as 


THE UNITED STATES 183 


compared with prohibition—it is too early to pronounce judg- 
ment on the basis of recorded fact. The case seems reasonably 
clear so far as the military and naval forces are concerned. 
The prompt and decisive manner in which Congress and the 
higher administrative officials dealt with that question compared 
with the tentative and half-hearted way in which the English 
government acted, leaves no room for doubt. The effects of 
prohibition of sale to the American troops is beyond all com- 
parison superior to those mild restrictions upon drinking by the 
British troops. 

Judging by the discussions, the dispensary system in England 
was not wholly a temperance measure. One very large and 
influential group of English politicians is less interested in tem- 
perance and sobriety than they are in government enterprise 
and ownership. To get the government to take over the manu- 
facture and dispensing of drink is to them a distinct gain, what- 
ever its effect upon drunkenness or food conservation. On the 
other hand, the food shortage in England necessitated more 
drastic action in the direction of food conservation than we have 
had forced upon us. Both countries have prohibited the manu- 
facture of distilled spirits for beverage purposes. Whereas we 
have reduced by 30 per cent the amount of food materials which 
may be used in the manufacture of malt liquors, England has 
reduced it by 66 per cent. This stoppage of the distillation of 
distilled spirits in England, and the drastic reduction in the 
production of beer, might have been expected to reduce drunk- 
enness considerably even without the efforts of the Central Con- 
trol Board (Liquor Traffic). One is therefore scarcely justified 
in attributing to, the dispensary system all the credit for the 
reduction in the amount of drunkenness. 

With us, until nationwide prohibition is put into effect, or 
something else is substituted for it, we shall have made no 
serious attempt to control drunkenness among our civilian popu- 
lation beyond what was done before we entered upon the war. 
Therefore, we have nothing very definite to discuss in the way 
of results. 


REFERENCES 
OFFICIAL REPORTS, ETC. 


Reports of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic). 

First Report. London, 1915. 
Second Report. London, 1916. 
Third Report. London, 1916. 

Licensing Statistics, 1916. Statistics as to the Operation and Administration 
of the Laws Relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor in England 
and Wales for the Year 1916. 

Intoxicating Liquors (Restrictions in Foreign Countries during the War). 
London, 1915. 

Report of the Advisory Committee on Proposals for the State Purchase of 
the Licensed Liquor Trade. Liquor Trade Finance Committee of Eng- 
land and Wales. London, 1916. 

Manuals of Emergency Legislation (England). 

Defense of the Realm Manual. 
Food Controller’s Orders. 
Supplements. 

Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest. (England.) Report of the 
Commissioners for the Northeastern Area; Northwestern Area; London 
and Southeastern Area; West Midlands Area; Yorkshire and East Mid- 
lands; Southwestern Area; Wales, including Monmouthshire; Scotland. 

By Lord D’Abernon: 

Public Health and the Control of the Liquor Traffic. 

Public Health and Alcoholism among Women. 

Some Aspects of the Drink Problem. 

Preface to “Alcohol: Its Action on the Human Organism,” prepared by 
Advisory Committee of Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic). Lon- 
don, 1918. H. M.’s Stationery Office. 


BOOKS 
Banks, L. A. 
Amniunition for Final Drive on Booze. New York, 1917. Funk & 
Wagnalls Company. 4 
Beman, L. T., Comp. 
Selected Articles on Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic. New York, 1917. 
H. W. Wilson. 
Carter, Henry. 
Europe’s Revolt against Alcohol. London, 1915. C. H. Kelley. 
The Control of the Drink Trade. London, 1918. Longmans, Green & Co. 
185 


186 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Finot, Jean. 
L’'Union Sacrée contre L’Alcoolisme. Paris. 
Fisk, Eugene L. 
Alcohol, Its Relation to Human Efficiency and Longevity. New York, 
1917. Funk & Wagnalls Company. 
Gordon, Ernest. 
Russian Prohibition. Ohio, 1916. The American Issue Publishing Com- 
pany. 
Johnson, William E. 
The Liquor Problem in Russia. Ohio, 1915. The American Issue cout 
pany. 
Kelynack, T. N. 
The Drink Problem of Today. New York, 1916. E. P. Dutton & Co. 
Koren, John. 
Alcohol and Society. New York, 1916. H. Holt & Co. 
Maurevert, Georges. 
L’Alcool contre la France. Paris, 1915. 
Mee, Arthur, and Holden, J. Stuart. 
Defeat or Victory? London, 1917. Morgan & Scott, Ltd. 
Murray, Marr. 
Drink and the War. London, 1915. Chapman & Hall. New York, 1917. 
E. P. Dutton Company. 
Newton, J. 
Alcohol and the War; the Example of Russia. London. R. J. James. 
Richardson, A. W. 
The Nation and Alcohol. London, 1916. Student Christian Movement. 
Samuelson, James. 
Drink, Past, Present, and Probable Future, with Some of Its Bearings 
on the War. Liverpool, 1917. Philip, Son and Nephew, Ltd. 
Taylor, E. L., and Jones, T. S. 
Recent Federal Laws Affecting Whiskey. Baldwin Law Book, 1917. 
Vidal, Henri. 
Le Cabaret. Paris, 1916. M. Giard & E. Briére. 


PAMPHLETS 
Bryan, W. J. 
Prohibition. Washington, D. C., 1916. 
Cook, S. A. 


Christian Patriotism in Temperance Reform. Philadelphia, 1916. Amer- 
ican Baptist Publishing Company. 
Fisher, Irving. 
War Time Prohibition. 
Gibon, Fénelon. 
Le Mal Social de !Alcoolisme (Moyens Pratiques de le Combattre). 
From the Révue Pratique d’Apologetique. Paris, 1917 


REFERENCES 187 


International Prohibition Confederation. 
Great War and Prohibition, 1914-15. London, 1916. International Pro- 
hibition Offices. 
Maurice, H. 
Temperance against Prohibition. New York, 1916. America Press. 
Mee, Arthur. 
The Fiddlers. Westerville, Ohio, 1917. American Issue Company. 
Nordquist, F. 
Is Prohibition Justifiable? Rock Island, Ill, 1917. Augustana Book 
Company. 
Stoddard, Cora F. 
France and Alcoholism in War Time. Westerville, Ohio, 1918. Amer- 
ican Issue Company. 
Taylor, E. H., Jr., & Sons, Inc. 
From Washington to Wilson. Frankfort, Ky., 1917. 
Transeau, E. L. 
Army Experience with Drink. Westerville, Ohio, 1915. American Issue 
Company. 
Wilson, S. 
Compensation. Newark, N. J., 1917. Anti-Saloon League of New Jersey. 


MAGAZINE ARTICLES 


Alexander, C. B. 
“Will Prohibition Work?” Independent. March 19, 1917. 
Amey, Lacey. 
“England in Arms.” Canadian Magazine. V. 49, 1917. 
Anderson, Wm. H. 
“National Prohibition—What Form Should It Take?” Outlook. De- 
cember 27, 1916. 
Arnold, E. C. 
“Prohibiting Possession of Liquor for Personal Use.” American Law 
Review. March, 1918. 
Baynes, H.; Chancellor, H. G. 
“State Purchase of the Liquor Trade.” Contemporary Review. July, 
1917. 
Brown, L. Ames. 
“Economics of Prohibition.” North American Review. February, 1916. 
“Prohibition or Temperance.” North American Review. October, 1916. 
“Prohibition’s Legislative Efforts.” North American Review. October, 
1916. 
“Election and Prohibition.” December, 1916. 
Brunton, Sir Lauder. ; 
“Alcohol: What It Does to Us and What We Ought to Do with It.” 
Nineteenth Century. July, 1915. 
Bryan, W. J. 
“Prohibition’s Progress.” Independent. May 19, 1917. 


188 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Chancellor, H. G. 
“War and National Temperance.” Living Age. November 11, 1916. 
Davenport, E. d 
“Shall the Brewing of Grain be Prohibited?” Atlantic Monthly. July, 
1917. 
ilisy “Ely 
~ “Drink Program of the Future.” New Statesman. July, 1917. 
Everhart, R. O. 
“Prohibition, When and Why.” Independent. March 5, 1917. 
Fisk, E. L. 
“Alcohol and Human Efficiency.” Atlantic Monthly. February, 1917. 
Fox, H. F. 
“Turning Off the Spigot; Reply to Mrs. Tilton.” Survey. April 21, 1917. 
Graham, Whidden. 
“After National Prohibition, What?” North American Review, April, 
1917. 
Hesselgrave, C. E. 
“Why Our Town Went Dry.” Independent. January 26, 1918. 
Jennings, H. J. 
“New Drink Regulations.” Fortnightly Review. January, 1916. 
“Beer and the Revenue.” Fortnightly Review. May, 1915. 
Jones, Harry. ‘ ; 
“What Lloyd George Accomplished against Liquor” World’s Work. 
August, 1915. 
Koren, John. 
“Drink Reform in Europe.” Atlantic Monthly. December, 1915. 
“Social Aspects of Drink.” Atlantic Monthly. January, 1916. 
“Constructive Temperance Reform.” Atlantic Monthly. February, 1916. 
“Government and Prohibition.” Atlantic Monthly. April, 1916. 
Lathbury, D. C. 
“Drink and War.” Nineteenth Century. May, 1915. 
Morse, E. L. C. 
“Prohibition.” Nation. July 19, 1917. 
Nock, A. J. 
“Should We Fight for Prohibition?” Century. March, 1917. 
Piacentini, M. 
“Prevention and Repression of Alcoholism in Anglo-Saxon Countries.” 
Journal of Criminal Law. May, 1917. 
Pickett, D. 
“Prohibition’s Story.” Forum. June, 1917. 
Robinson, Andrew C. 
“The Russian Budget and Prohibition.” Spectator. November 18, 1916. 
Rogers, L. 
“War and Liquor Restriction in the United States.” Contemporary Re- 
view. October, 1917. 


REFERENCES 189 


Rosenthal, A. U. 
“American Malt; Prohibition and Its Possible Effect.” Investment. 
April 7, 1917. 
Shadwell, A. 
“Liquor Traffic in War.” Nineteenth Century. February, 1917. 
Sheldon, C. M. 
“Biggest British Blunder.” Independent. March 2, 1918. 
Sherwell, A. 
“State Control of the Liquor Traffic.” Spectator. May 6-27, 1916. 
Singh, C. St. N. 
“Spread of Prohibition in the United States.” Living Age. June 30, 
1917. 
Stoddard, C. F. 
“Prohibition.” Survey. December 30, 1916. 
Theiss, L. E. 
“Prohibition and the Price of Coal.” Outlook. July 25, 1917. 
Tilton, E. 
“Turning Off the Spigot.” Survey. January 13, 27, February 10, 24, and 
March 10, 1917. 
“The Drink Problem in France.” Survey. November 3, 1917. 
“As to Prohibition.” New Republic. July 28, 1917. 
Vance, W. J., and Woods, R. A. 
“National Prohibition.” Survey. February 10, 1917. 
Whelpley, James D. 
“War and Drink; How Despotic Russia Set Tolerant England a Notable 
Example.” Century. May, 1915. 
Whittaker, Sir Thomas P., M. P. 
“Work of the Central Control Board.” Contemporary Review. March, 
1916. 
“The Drink Trade and State Purchase.” Contemporary Review. June, 
1915. 


UNSIGNED 


Bankers’ Magazine— 
“Nation-Wide Prohibition Coming.” January, 1918. 
Current History Magazine of the New York Times— 
“Alcohol and the War.’ January, 1918. 
Current Opinion— 
“Can the Allies Endure the Strain of Total Abstinence from Alcohol?” 
June, 1915. 
“The Liquor Traffic in Its Last Line of Trenches.” June, 1917. 
Independent— 
“Progress of Prohibition.” January 29, 1917. 
“Liberty of Difference.” April 21, 1917. 
“War Prohibition Now!” May 26, 1917. 
“To Win the War.” June 16, 1917. 


190 GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS 


Literary Digest— 
“England’s Wavering with Drink.’ May 29, 1915. 
“Alcohol and the War.” September 4, 1915. 
“War’s War on Drink.” July 15, 1916. 
“Liquor Press on the Dry Victories.” December 16, 1916. 
“France’s Struggle with Alcohol.’ January 6, 1917. 
“Canada Swept by Prohibition.” January 20, 1917. 
“England Drifting Toward Prohibition.” February 3, 1917. 
“Drink Issue in England.” July 14, 1917. 
“Two Years’ Sobriety in Russia.” March 24, 1917. 
“Nation-Wide Prohibition as a War Measure.” May 26, 1917. 
“Effects of War-Time Prohibition.” July 7, 1917. ; 
“Drink Issue in England.” July 14, 1917. 
“Drink Problem in the War.” September 29, 1917. 
“Battle On to Make America Dry.” December 29, 1917. 
“Brewers Campaign of Righteousness.” January 12, 1918. 
“Nation-wide Drought in Sight.” September 21, 1918. 

Nation— 
“Constitutional Prohibition.” August 9, 1917. 

North American Review— 
“Prohibition against Patriotism.” June, 1917. 

Outlook— 
“Prohibition in the United States and Russia.” January 19, 1916. 
“Canada and the Liquor Question.” April 12, 1916. 
“War on Alcohol.” February 28, 1917. 
“Liquor Question in England.” March 7, 1917. 
“National Prohibition in War Time.” June 13, 1917. 
“Prohibition and the War.” July 4, 1917. 
“Prohibition or War.” August 15, 1917; September 12, 1917. 
“National Prohibition.” December 26, 1917. 

Review of Reviews— 
“Drink Problem in England.” July, 1915. 
“State Purchase as a Solution of England’s Liquor Problem.” March, 

1917. 

“European Views on Wine and Beer Drinking.” January, 1918. 
“War against Alcohol.” January, 1918. 

Spectator— 
“Down Glasses—the Test Case.” ' December 23, 1916. 
“Opportunity That Will Not Return.” January 6, 1917. 
“Bread or Beer.” January 20, 1917. 
“Bread vs. Beer.” January 27, 1917. 
“More in Anger than Fear; in Regard to the Acts of the Food Con- 

trolier.” February 10, 1917. 

“The Last Phase.” February 17, 1917. 
“Tragical Food Farce.” February 24, 1917. 
“What Might Have Been; Lloyd George’s Speech.” March 3, 1917. 
“Liquor Problem—Wanted, a Compromise.” April 14, 1917. 


REFERENCES 191 


Spectator— 
“What Ails the House of Commons?” April 21, 1917. 
“Food Problem Again.” April 28, 1917. 
“Creation of Unrest.” July 14, 1917. 

New Statesman— 
“Drink.” April 14, 1917. 

Survey— 
“New Committee on War Prohibition.” May 5, 1917. 
“Economics of War Prohibition.” May 12, 1917. 
“National Prohibition on the Way.’ December 22, 1917. 


CONTROVERSIAL 


PrERIODICALS, MAGAZINES, YEARBOOKS, ETc. 


American— 
American Prohibition Yearbook. Chicago, Ill. 1917. 
Anti-Saloon League Yearbook. Westerville, Ohio. 1917. 
Proceedings (Annual Convention of the Anti-Saloon League of Amer- 
ica). Washington, D. C. 
Cyclopedia of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals. By Pickett 
and Others, Editors. Cincinnati, O. 1917. 
The American Issue.. Westerville, Ohio. 
American Advance. Prohibition National Committee. Chicago. 
National Prohibitionist. W. P. F. Ferguson Co. New York. 
The Union Signal. W.C. T. U. Evanston, II. 
Anti-Prohibition Manual. National Association of Distillers and Whole- 
sale Dealers. Cincinnati, O. 1918. 
U. S. Brewers’ Association Yearbook. New York. 
Bonfort’s Wine and Spirit Circular. P. Bonfort. New York. 
Bonfort’s Wine and Spirit Directory. Leoser Bros. & Gilmore. 1912. 
American Wine Press and Mineral Water News. L. J. Vance. New 
York. 
Cozzens’ Wine Press. F.S. Cozzens. New York. 
North American Wine and Spirit Journal Incorporating New England 
Liquor Journal and Directory. Boston. 
Pacific Wine and Spirit Review. San Francisco. 
The Other Side of Prohibition. National Wholesale Liquor Dealers’ 
Association. Cincinnati, O. 
Twentieth Century Quarterly. International Reform Bureau. Washing- 
tom D.C. 
Canadian— 
The Pioneer. Toronto, Canada. 
The Statesman. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 
English— 
Alliance News and Temperance Reformer. London. 
Monthly Notes. Published by Temperance Legislation League. London. 


_ French— 


192 GOVERNMENT co 


English Snes’ Maen Wa oy 
British Temperance hae Wieddene peak 
The International Record. Published. oe ed 


L’Abstinence. Paris. 

German— 

- Die Abstinenz. Wien. 

_ Die Alkoholgegner. Wien. 
Die Alkoholfrage. Berlin. 
Der Alkoholismus. Leipsig. 


Date Due 
FEB a0) URGE Ea 
payers ee ay UR 
a Beh 
DR Bh ae 
aa) ae 
ae 
Bae es Bes 
CR Oe 
eat a ee 
Ree eS 
Pibane” EE 
St a 
Pte ae 
BY. Sas 
ee ee 


L. B. Cat. No. 1137 


a 


no.10-13 


» 
w 
E 
& 
| os 
Ee 


| 
af 
i) 


© 
© 
se) 
nO 
ite) 
re) 
re 
' 
° 
o 
° 
° 
rs} 
re) 
Se 
st 
* 
% 
oD 


LA 


